As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

Terrorism General: A Developing Thread 1Sep Typologies: Revolutionary Anarchist

1234579

Posts

  • Options
    Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    LostNinja wrote: »
    hsu wrote: »
    Speaking of not being able to deport undesirables...
    http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/fem-tonaringar-doms-for-grov-gruppvaldtakt/
    That's an article about 5 teenage Afghan refugees convicted of aggravated rape, with video evidence, whom Sweden refuses to deport once their sentence ends.

    Sure they could be potentially subjected to violence if they were deported back to Afghanistan, but since they already beat up and raped a teenager, I don't see why Sweden should give a rats ass what happens to them.

    "You've been charged with a crime and were found guilty! Anything that happens to you after this point is fair game; up to and including torture and death."

    Gee, that sure sounds like a winning strategy to me!

    We aren't talking about a minor offense though. I think rape and/or murder is a pretty fair place to draw that line.

    Why is that a good place to draw the line? What benefit does it provide? What purpose does it serve?

    Sometimes you have to punish people after the punishment so completely uninvolved people can get their kicks in.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • Options
    LostNinjaLostNinja Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    LostNinja wrote: »
    hsu wrote: »
    Speaking of not being able to deport undesirables...
    http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/fem-tonaringar-doms-for-grov-gruppvaldtakt/
    That's an article about 5 teenage Afghan refugees convicted of aggravated rape, with video evidence, whom Sweden refuses to deport once their sentence ends.

    Sure they could be potentially subjected to violence if they were deported back to Afghanistan, but since they already beat up and raped a teenager, I don't see why Sweden should give a rats ass what happens to them.

    "You've been charged with a crime and were found guilty! Anything that happens to you after this point is fair game; up to and including torture and death."

    Gee, that sure sounds like a winning strategy to me!

    We aren't talking about a minor offense though. I think rape and/or murder is a pretty fair place to draw that line.

    Why is that a good place to draw the line? What benefit does it provide? What purpose does it serve?

    The purpose of one less (or in this case 5 less) rapists in your country.

    Are we really defending rapists now?

    LostNinja on
  • Options
    rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    LostNinja wrote: »
    LostNinja wrote: »
    hsu wrote: »
    Speaking of not being able to deport undesirables...
    http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/fem-tonaringar-doms-for-grov-gruppvaldtakt/
    That's an article about 5 teenage Afghan refugees convicted of aggravated rape, with video evidence, whom Sweden refuses to deport once their sentence ends.

    Sure they could be potentially subjected to violence if they were deported back to Afghanistan, but since they already beat up and raped a teenager, I don't see why Sweden should give a rats ass what happens to them.

    "You've been charged with a crime and were found guilty! Anything that happens to you after this point is fair game; up to and including torture and death."

    Gee, that sure sounds like a winning strategy to me!

    We aren't talking about a minor offense though. I think rape and/or murder is a pretty fair place to draw that line.

    Why is that a good place to draw the line? What benefit does it provide? What purpose does it serve?

    The purpose of one less (or in this case 5 less) rapists in your country.

    Are we really defending rapists now?

    So we aren't sending our best?

  • Options
    LostNinjaLostNinja Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    rockrnger wrote: »
    LostNinja wrote: »
    LostNinja wrote: »
    hsu wrote: »
    Speaking of not being able to deport undesirables...
    http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/fem-tonaringar-doms-for-grov-gruppvaldtakt/
    That's an article about 5 teenage Afghan refugees convicted of aggravated rape, with video evidence, whom Sweden refuses to deport once their sentence ends.

    Sure they could be potentially subjected to violence if they were deported back to Afghanistan, but since they already beat up and raped a teenager, I don't see why Sweden should give a rats ass what happens to them.

    "You've been charged with a crime and were found guilty! Anything that happens to you after this point is fair game; up to and including torture and death."

    Gee, that sure sounds like a winning strategy to me!

    We aren't talking about a minor offense though. I think rape and/or murder is a pretty fair place to draw that line.

    Why is that a good place to draw the line? What benefit does it provide? What purpose does it serve?

    The purpose of one less (or in this case 5 less) rapists in your country.

    Are we really defending rapists now?

    So we aren't sending our best?

    Nowhere in my post did I say anything against accepting refugees or that they are all criminals.

    I love it when we immediately resort to snark for no reason in these discussions.

    LostNinja on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    LostNinja wrote: »
    hsu wrote: »
    Speaking of not being able to deport undesirables...
    http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/fem-tonaringar-doms-for-grov-gruppvaldtakt/
    That's an article about 5 teenage Afghan refugees convicted of aggravated rape, with video evidence, whom Sweden refuses to deport once their sentence ends.

    Sure they could be potentially subjected to violence if they were deported back to Afghanistan, but since they already beat up and raped a teenager, I don't see why Sweden should give a rats ass what happens to them.

    "You've been charged with a crime and were found guilty! Anything that happens to you after this point is fair game; up to and including torture and death."

    Gee, that sure sounds like a winning strategy to me!

    We aren't talking about a minor offense though. I think rape and/or murder is a pretty fair place to draw that line.

    This is the same sort of mentality that "justifies" prison rape as part of the punishment for breaking the law. Extralegal punishment (and that's what sending them to face likely torture and execution is) is never justifiable.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    LostNinja wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    LostNinja wrote: »
    LostNinja wrote: »
    hsu wrote: »
    Speaking of not being able to deport undesirables...
    http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/fem-tonaringar-doms-for-grov-gruppvaldtakt/
    That's an article about 5 teenage Afghan refugees convicted of aggravated rape, with video evidence, whom Sweden refuses to deport once their sentence ends.

    Sure they could be potentially subjected to violence if they were deported back to Afghanistan, but since they already beat up and raped a teenager, I don't see why Sweden should give a rats ass what happens to them.

    "You've been charged with a crime and were found guilty! Anything that happens to you after this point is fair game; up to and including torture and death."

    Gee, that sure sounds like a winning strategy to me!

    We aren't talking about a minor offense though. I think rape and/or murder is a pretty fair place to draw that line.

    Why is that a good place to draw the line? What benefit does it provide? What purpose does it serve?

    The purpose of one less (or in this case 5 less) rapists in your country.

    Are we really defending rapists now?

    So we aren't sending our best?

    Nowhere in my post did I say anything against accepting refugees or that they are all criminals.

    I love it when we immediately resort to snark for no reason in these discussions.

    That's the joke.

    That you're advocating what trump thinks Mexicans do.

  • Options
    LostNinjaLostNinja Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    LostNinja wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    LostNinja wrote: »
    LostNinja wrote: »
    hsu wrote: »
    Speaking of not being able to deport undesirables...
    http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/fem-tonaringar-doms-for-grov-gruppvaldtakt/
    That's an article about 5 teenage Afghan refugees convicted of aggravated rape, with video evidence, whom Sweden refuses to deport once their sentence ends.

    Sure they could be potentially subjected to violence if they were deported back to Afghanistan, but since they already beat up and raped a teenager, I don't see why Sweden should give a rats ass what happens to them.

    "You've been charged with a crime and were found guilty! Anything that happens to you after this point is fair game; up to and including torture and death."

    Gee, that sure sounds like a winning strategy to me!

    We aren't talking about a minor offense though. I think rape and/or murder is a pretty fair place to draw that line.

    Why is that a good place to draw the line? What benefit does it provide? What purpose does it serve?

    The purpose of one less (or in this case 5 less) rapists in your country.

    Are we really defending rapists now?

    So we aren't sending our best?

    Nowhere in my post did I say anything against accepting refugees or that they are all criminals.

    I love it when we immediately resort to snark for no reason in these discussions.

    That's the joke.

    That you're advocating what trump thinks Mexicans do.

    Again, no I wasn't.

    I was saying I think it's okay to deport individuals who are convicted of committing one of the most serious crimes we have.

  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    LostNinja wrote: »
    LostNinja wrote: »
    hsu wrote: »
    Speaking of not being able to deport undesirables...
    http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/fem-tonaringar-doms-for-grov-gruppvaldtakt/
    That's an article about 5 teenage Afghan refugees convicted of aggravated rape, with video evidence, whom Sweden refuses to deport once their sentence ends.

    Sure they could be potentially subjected to violence if they were deported back to Afghanistan, but since they already beat up and raped a teenager, I don't see why Sweden should give a rats ass what happens to them.

    "You've been charged with a crime and were found guilty! Anything that happens to you after this point is fair game; up to and including torture and death."

    Gee, that sure sounds like a winning strategy to me!

    We aren't talking about a minor offense though. I think rape and/or murder is a pretty fair place to draw that line.

    Why is that a good place to draw the line? What benefit does it provide? What purpose does it serve?

    The purpose of one less (or in this case 5 less) rapists in your country.

    Are we really defending rapists now?

    I'll defend each and every human being's right to not receive cruel or unusual punishment. Sweden should try to make them better people not stoop to their same level.

  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    LostNinja wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    LostNinja wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    LostNinja wrote: »
    LostNinja wrote: »
    hsu wrote: »
    Speaking of not being able to deport undesirables...
    http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/fem-tonaringar-doms-for-grov-gruppvaldtakt/
    That's an article about 5 teenage Afghan refugees convicted of aggravated rape, with video evidence, whom Sweden refuses to deport once their sentence ends.

    Sure they could be potentially subjected to violence if they were deported back to Afghanistan, but since they already beat up and raped a teenager, I don't see why Sweden should give a rats ass what happens to them.

    "You've been charged with a crime and were found guilty! Anything that happens to you after this point is fair game; up to and including torture and death."

    Gee, that sure sounds like a winning strategy to me!

    We aren't talking about a minor offense though. I think rape and/or murder is a pretty fair place to draw that line.

    Why is that a good place to draw the line? What benefit does it provide? What purpose does it serve?

    The purpose of one less (or in this case 5 less) rapists in your country.

    Are we really defending rapists now?

    So we aren't sending our best?

    Nowhere in my post did I say anything against accepting refugees or that they are all criminals.

    I love it when we immediately resort to snark for no reason in these discussions.

    That's the joke.

    That you're advocating what trump thinks Mexicans do.

    Again, no I wasn't.

    I was saying I think it's okay to deport individuals who are convicted of committing one of the most serious crimes we have.

    Even knowing that you're signing that person's death warrant by doing so?

    Many EU nations will not extradite individuals facing capital charges to the US solely on the grounds that they do not want to be involved in the execution of that person.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    LostNinja wrote: »
    LostNinja wrote: »
    hsu wrote: »
    Speaking of not being able to deport undesirables...
    http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/fem-tonaringar-doms-for-grov-gruppvaldtakt/
    That's an article about 5 teenage Afghan refugees convicted of aggravated rape, with video evidence, whom Sweden refuses to deport once their sentence ends.

    Sure they could be potentially subjected to violence if they were deported back to Afghanistan, but since they already beat up and raped a teenager, I don't see why Sweden should give a rats ass what happens to them.

    "You've been charged with a crime and were found guilty! Anything that happens to you after this point is fair game; up to and including torture and death."

    Gee, that sure sounds like a winning strategy to me!

    We aren't talking about a minor offense though. I think rape and/or murder is a pretty fair place to draw that line.

    Why is that a good place to draw the line? What benefit does it provide? What purpose does it serve?

    The purpose of one less (or in this case 5 less) rapists in your country.

    Are we really defending rapists now?

    I'll defend each and every human being's right to not receive cruel or unusual punishment. Sweden should try to make them better people not stoop to their same level.

    Its a fundamental difference in viewing the legal system as a tool for rehabilitation or retribution.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    LostNinja wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    LostNinja wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    LostNinja wrote: »
    LostNinja wrote: »
    hsu wrote: »
    Speaking of not being able to deport undesirables...
    http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/fem-tonaringar-doms-for-grov-gruppvaldtakt/
    That's an article about 5 teenage Afghan refugees convicted of aggravated rape, with video evidence, whom Sweden refuses to deport once their sentence ends.

    Sure they could be potentially subjected to violence if they were deported back to Afghanistan, but since they already beat up and raped a teenager, I don't see why Sweden should give a rats ass what happens to them.

    "You've been charged with a crime and were found guilty! Anything that happens to you after this point is fair game; up to and including torture and death."

    Gee, that sure sounds like a winning strategy to me!

    We aren't talking about a minor offense though. I think rape and/or murder is a pretty fair place to draw that line.

    Why is that a good place to draw the line? What benefit does it provide? What purpose does it serve?

    The purpose of one less (or in this case 5 less) rapists in your country.

    Are we really defending rapists now?

    So we aren't sending our best?

    Nowhere in my post did I say anything against accepting refugees or that they are all criminals.

    I love it when we immediately resort to snark for no reason in these discussions.

    That's the joke.

    That you're advocating what trump thinks Mexicans do.

    Again, no I wasn't.

    I was saying I think it's okay to deport individuals who are convicted of committing one of the most serious crimes we have.

    Let's be clear here: It's deportation followed by torture and eventually death. If Sweden somehow worked out an agreement with Canada or whoever to house them then sure whatever.

    But that's not what you're suggesting here. You're suggesting deporting them to a place where they'll almost definitely be tortured to death. Which means suggesting you think it's okay for people to be tortured to death and I strongly disagree.

  • Options
    LostNinjaLostNinja Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    Quid wrote: »
    LostNinja wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    LostNinja wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    LostNinja wrote: »
    LostNinja wrote: »
    hsu wrote: »
    Speaking of not being able to deport undesirables...
    http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/fem-tonaringar-doms-for-grov-gruppvaldtakt/
    That's an article about 5 teenage Afghan refugees convicted of aggravated rape, with video evidence, whom Sweden refuses to deport once their sentence ends.

    Sure they could be potentially subjected to violence if they were deported back to Afghanistan, but since they already beat up and raped a teenager, I don't see why Sweden should give a rats ass what happens to them.

    "You've been charged with a crime and were found guilty! Anything that happens to you after this point is fair game; up to and including torture and death."

    Gee, that sure sounds like a winning strategy to me!

    We aren't talking about a minor offense though. I think rape and/or murder is a pretty fair place to draw that line.

    Why is that a good place to draw the line? What benefit does it provide? What purpose does it serve?

    The purpose of one less (or in this case 5 less) rapists in your country.

    Are we really defending rapists now?

    So we aren't sending our best?

    Nowhere in my post did I say anything against accepting refugees or that they are all criminals.

    I love it when we immediately resort to snark for no reason in these discussions.

    That's the joke.

    That you're advocating what trump thinks Mexicans do.

    Again, no I wasn't.

    I was saying I think it's okay to deport individuals who are convicted of committing one of the most serious crimes we have.

    Let's be clear here: It's deportation followed by torture and eventually death. If Sweden somehow worked out an agreement with Canada or whoever to house them then sure whatever.

    But that's not what you're suggesting here. You're suggesting deporting them to a place where they'll almost definitely be tortured to death. Which means suggesting you think it's okay for people to be tortured to death and I strongly disagree.

    Why are we assuming this part? Unless the original poster really downplayed it, it doesn't seem like the case, which is what I've been assuming this whole time. I took the emphasized "potentially" just to be because it is a dangerous country right now.

    LostNinja on
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    LostNinja wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    LostNinja wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    LostNinja wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    LostNinja wrote: »
    LostNinja wrote: »
    hsu wrote: »
    Speaking of not being able to deport undesirables...
    http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/fem-tonaringar-doms-for-grov-gruppvaldtakt/
    That's an article about 5 teenage Afghan refugees convicted of aggravated rape, with video evidence, whom Sweden refuses to deport once their sentence ends.

    Sure they could be potentially subjected to violence if they were deported back to Afghanistan, but since they already beat up and raped a teenager, I don't see why Sweden should give a rats ass what happens to them.

    "You've been charged with a crime and were found guilty! Anything that happens to you after this point is fair game; up to and including torture and death."

    Gee, that sure sounds like a winning strategy to me!

    We aren't talking about a minor offense though. I think rape and/or murder is a pretty fair place to draw that line.

    Why is that a good place to draw the line? What benefit does it provide? What purpose does it serve?

    The purpose of one less (or in this case 5 less) rapists in your country.

    Are we really defending rapists now?

    So we aren't sending our best?

    Nowhere in my post did I say anything against accepting refugees or that they are all criminals.

    I love it when we immediately resort to snark for no reason in these discussions.

    That's the joke.

    That you're advocating what trump thinks Mexicans do.

    Again, no I wasn't.

    I was saying I think it's okay to deport individuals who are convicted of committing one of the most serious crimes we have.

    Let's be clear here: It's deportation followed by torture and eventually death. If Sweden somehow worked out an agreement with Canada or whoever to house them then sure whatever.

    But that's not what you're suggesting here. You're suggesting deporting them to a place where they'll almost definitely be tortured to death. Which means suggesting you think it's okay for people to be tortured to death and I strongly disagree.

    Why are we assuming this part? Unless the original poster really downplayed it, it doesn't seem like the case, which is what I've been assuming this whole time. I took the emphasized "potentially" just to be because it is a dangerous country right now.

    I apologize I misread.

    They'll only be subjected to the constant, unending violence of a war zone. I'm not especially okay with that either.

  • Options
    hsuhsu Registered User regular
    Below is a first hand tourist's account of his visit to Kabul, Afghanistan in 2015. Although there's still a war going on, it seems Afghans are getting back on their feet pretty well. I don't see how this is the death sentence all of you make it out to be.
    https://www.gotravelyourway.com/2015/03/10/life-on-the-streets-of-kabul/

    iTNdmYl.png
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    hsu wrote: »
    Below is a first hand tourist's account of his visit to Kabul, Afghanistan in 2015. Although there's still a war going on, it seems Afghans are getting back on their feet pretty well. I don't see how this is the death sentence all of you make it out to be.
    https://www.gotravelyourway.com/2015/03/10/life-on-the-streets-of-kabul/

    Here's what happening today in Kabul.

    But anecdotal evidence either way isn't the point. Sending people to countries embroiled with terrorists and no support for rehabilitation is not an acceptable punishment as far as I'm concerned. I don't think governments should shy away from the hard work of making the world a better place.

  • Options
    iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Cornfield? Cornfield.Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    hsu wrote: »
    Below is a first hand tourist's account of his visit to Kabul, Afghanistan in 2015. Although there's still a war going on, it seems Afghans are getting back on their feet pretty well. I don't see how this is the death sentence all of you make it out to be.
    https://www.gotravelyourway.com/2015/03/10/life-on-the-streets-of-kabul/

    Yet somehow Sweden apparently sees it. Weird, huh?

    [ed] Also, this is some awesome research. Right up there with going to Ford's German website, finding that Mustangs are more expensive there, and decreeing the price increase is all about import tariffs. :rotate:

    iTunesIsEvil on
  • Options
    Captain MarcusCaptain Marcus now arrives the hour of actionRegistered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    I don't think governments should shy away from the hard work of making the world a better place.
    Why should Sweden spend its money helping foreigners who raped their citizens? The ethical thing to do would be to throw them out so Sweden is safer.

  • Options
    iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Cornfield? Cornfield.Registered User regular
    Deporting people to war-zones doesn't sound too ethical to me...

  • Options
    OneAngryPossumOneAngryPossum Registered User regular
    Anybody feel the need to look up recidivism rates in Sweden before throwing around feel-good machismo? What the victim wants? How Sweden typically handles these instances?

    Those seem kind of important, but I'm sure we're all well-versed on the important information.

  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    I don't think governments should shy away from the hard work of making the world a better place.
    Why should Sweden spend its money helping foreigners who raped their citizens? The ethical thing to do would be to throw them out so Sweden is safer.

    Because I don't think governments should shy away from the hard work of making the world a better place.

    Why should Sweden make the world worse? Why are you so keen that people be hurt instead of rehabilitated.

  • Options
    Captain MarcusCaptain Marcus now arrives the hour of actionRegistered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    I don't think governments should shy away from the hard work of making the world a better place.
    Why should Sweden spend its money helping foreigners who raped their citizens? The ethical thing to do would be to throw them out so Sweden is safer.

    Because I don't think governments should shy away from the hard work of making the world a better place.

    Why should Sweden make the world worse? Why are you so keen that people be hurt instead of rehabilitated.
    They dragged a little boy into the woods and gang-raped him for an hour

    They filmed the whole thing so other monsters can jack off to it.

    They're getting less than a year and a half in prison. Deporting them sounds like a great fucking idea if Sweden doesn't have the balls to give them life in prison or the chair

  • Options
    iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Cornfield? Cornfield.Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    I don't think governments should shy away from the hard work of making the world a better place.
    Why should Sweden spend its money helping foreigners who raped their citizens? The ethical thing to do would be to throw them out so Sweden is safer.

    Because I don't think governments should shy away from the hard work of making the world a better place.

    Why should Sweden make the world worse? Why are you so keen that people be hurt instead of rehabilitated.
    They dragged a little boy into the woods and gang-raped him for an hour

    They filmed the whole thing so other monsters can jack off to it.

    They're getting less than a year and a half in prison. Deporting them sounds like a great fucking idea if Sweden doesn't have the balls to give them life in prison or the chair

    :whistle: macho, macho man! :whistle:

    Not sure what ones balls have to do with anything. Sweden's not behaving the way they are because of a lack of testosterone.

  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    I don't think governments should shy away from the hard work of making the world a better place.
    Why should Sweden spend its money helping foreigners who raped their citizens? The ethical thing to do would be to throw them out so Sweden is safer.

    Because I don't think governments should shy away from the hard work of making the world a better place.

    Why should Sweden make the world worse? Why are you so keen that people be hurt instead of rehabilitated.
    They dragged a little boy into the woods and gang-raped him for an hour

    They filmed the whole thing so other monsters can jack off to it.

    They're getting less than a year and a half in prison. Deporting them sounds like a great fucking idea if Sweden doesn't have the balls to give them life in prison or the chair

    Why is a year and a half in Sweden's prison not enough?

  • Options
    rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    I don't think governments should shy away from the hard work of making the world a better place.
    Why should Sweden spend its money helping foreigners who raped their citizens? The ethical thing to do would be to throw them out so Sweden is safer.

    Because I don't think governments should shy away from the hard work of making the world a better place.

    Why should Sweden make the world worse? Why are you so keen that people be hurt instead of rehabilitated.
    They dragged a little boy into the woods and gang-raped him for an hour

    They filmed the whole thing so other monsters can jack off to it.

    They're getting less than a year and a half in prison. Deporting them sounds like a great fucking idea if Sweden doesn't have the balls to give them life in prison or the chair

    If they are unrepentant monsters why do you want to send them somewhere with a huge vulnerable population and no real law enforcement?

  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    I don't think governments should shy away from the hard work of making the world a better place.
    Why should Sweden spend its money helping foreigners who raped their citizens? The ethical thing to do would be to throw them out so Sweden is safer.

    Because I don't think governments should shy away from the hard work of making the world a better place.

    Why should Sweden make the world worse? Why are you so keen that people be hurt instead of rehabilitated.
    They dragged a little boy into the woods and gang-raped him for an hour

    They filmed the whole thing so other monsters can jack off to it.

    They're getting less than a year and a half in prison. Deporting them sounds like a great fucking idea if Sweden doesn't have the balls to give them life in prison or the chair

    If they are unrepentant monsters why do you want to send them somewhere with a huge vulnerable population and no real law enforcement?

    Because he's hoping they'll fall prey to the bigger monsters there.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    I don't think governments should shy away from the hard work of making the world a better place.
    Why should Sweden spend its money helping foreigners who raped their citizens? The ethical thing to do would be to throw them out so Sweden is safer.

    Because I don't think governments should shy away from the hard work of making the world a better place.

    Why should Sweden make the world worse? Why are you so keen that people be hurt instead of rehabilitated.
    They dragged a little boy into the woods and gang-raped him for an hour

    They filmed the whole thing so other monsters can jack off to it.

    They're getting less than a year and a half in prison. Deporting them sounds like a great fucking idea if Sweden doesn't have the balls to give them life in prison or the chair

    If they are unrepentant monsters why do you want to send them somewhere with a huge vulnerable population and no real law enforcement?

    Because he's hoping they'll fall prey to the bigger monsters there.

    I thought it was safe as houses back home.

  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    (Also, if Sweden has a system similar to what Norway has, they may not be getting out for some time. There, while a sentence may be for a defined period on paper, the state reserves the right to determine that rehabilitation has not been achieved, and thus the prisoner is to remain in custody.)

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    Captain MarcusCaptain Marcus now arrives the hour of actionRegistered User regular
    edited December 2016
    Quid wrote: »
    Why is a year and a half in Sweden's prison not enough?
    Because raping a child is one of the most horrific and morally abhorrent acts one human being can do to another. It separates you from the rest of mankind, forever. And Sweden's giving them roughly the same prison time as stealing a tv.

    I don't get you guys. Every time some godawful violent rape happens here in the States you're rightfully clamoring to throw the book at the rapist and how unjust the ridiculously short sentence is, but when the perpetrators are "migrants" you look the other way.


    Edit- ethics? Justice? Where's the justice for that poor little kid?

    Captain Marcus on
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Why is a year and a half in Sweden's prison not enough?
    Because raping a child is one of the most horrific and morally abhorrent acts one human being can do to another. It separates you from the rest of mankind, forever. And Sweden's giving them roughly the same prison time as stealing a tv.

    I don't get you guys. Every time some godawful violent rape happens here in the States you're rightfully clamoring to throw the book at the rapist and how unjust the ridiculously short sentence is, but when the perpetrators are "migrants" you look the other way.

    Do you have a citation for the bolded or are you making something else up again?

    Why do you think Sweden is incapable of rehabilitating people?

    Your last sentence is your own perception. I don't believe anyone here has suggested people convicted of rape sent to war zones. I do believe people here have argued fervently that convicted rapists be sent to jail and ideally rehabilitated.

    If you'd like to specify posters who are advocating sending people to war zones as a punishment feel free to PM or reply to them in this thread. But I strongly suspect this is another round of your feelings overriding reality once again.

  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    They are serving about a year and a half and paying 250000 krona (28k USD) for a rape conviction. They are also minors which complicates the issue

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Edit- ethics? Justice? Where's the justice for that poor little kid?

    Again, do you want the world to be a better place or do you just want to hurt people?

  • Options
    Captain MarcusCaptain Marcus now arrives the hour of actionRegistered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Do you have a citation for the bolded or are you making something else up again?
    A year and a half? Really? That's a goddamn slap on the wrist. And I certainly advocate for them getting kicked out. Out of the kindness of their hearts the Swedes took these things into their country and they repaid their kindness by filming themselves gang-raping a child. They had their chance, and they blew it. Why should the Swedes allow them to stay?

  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Why is a year and a half in Sweden's prison not enough?
    Because raping a child is one of the most horrific and morally abhorrent acts one human being can do to another. It separates you from the rest of mankind, forever. And Sweden's giving them roughly the same prison time as stealing a tv.

    I don't get you guys. Every time some godawful violent rape happens here in the States you're rightfully clamoring to throw the book at the rapist and how unjust the ridiculously short sentence is, but when the perpetrators are "migrants" you look the other way.


    Edit- ethics? Justice? Where's the justice for that poor little kid?

    Address the fact that the rapists are minors

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    Quid wrote: »
    Do you have a citation for the bolded or are you making something else up again?
    A year and a half? Really? That's a goddamn slap on the wrist. And I certainly advocate for them getting kicked out. Out of the kindness of their hearts the Swedes took these things into their country and they repaid their kindness by filming themselves gang-raping a child. They had their chance, and they blew it. Why should the Swedes allow them to stay?

    So you don't have a citation and once again were making things up.

    If it's not enough to rehabilitate someone, demonstrate it. Otherwise you're just arguing for hurting people for the sake of hurting them. That is not a valid basis for governance.

    The Swedes should allow them to stay so that the Swedes can presumably rehabilitate them. Because the Swedes are better than them and can help them be too.

    Since when have you been oh so terrified of the hard work it takes to make things better?

    Quid on
  • Options
    DunderDunder Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Why is a year and a half in Sweden's prison not enough?
    Because raping a child is one of the most horrific and morally abhorrent acts one human being can do to another. It separates you from the rest of mankind, forever.

    Unless its done by the Catholic church, as history shows. Amazing what people can forgive as long as the right god is behind it.
    I don't get you guys. Every time some godawful violent rape happens here in the States you're rightfully clamoring to throw the book at the rapist and how unjust the ridiculously short sentence is, but when the perpetrators are "migrants" you look the other way.

    The book was thrown at these guys and no one here argued against that. 1.5 years and extended unless rehabilitation has occurred is still a lot more than the few months-time-already-served American rapists get.
    Edit- ethics? Justice? Where's the justice for that poor little kid?

    What Justice can there be? Will the boy be unraped and perfectly fine if Sweden grew those American "balls" and executed the rapists like a "strong", "tough" nation? I'll take Sweden's recidivism rate above American macho "justice" every time.

  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Do you have a citation for the bolded or are you making something else up again?
    A year and a half? Really? That's a goddamn slap on the wrist. And I certainly advocate for them getting kicked out. Out of the kindness of their hearts the Swedes took these things into their country and they repaid their kindness by filming themselves gang-raping a child. They had their chance, and they blew it. Why should the Swedes allow them to stay?

    So you don't have a citation and once again were making things up.

    If it's not enough to rehabilitate someone, demonstrate it. Otherwise you're just arguing for hurting people for the sake of hurting them. That is not a valid basis for governance.

    The Swedes should allow them to stay so that the Swedes can presumably rehabilitate them. Because the Swedes are better than them and can help them be too.

    Since when have you been oh so terrified of the hard work it takes to make things better?

    https://www.rt.com/news/369415-sweden-refugees-rape-afgan-boy/

    I googled sweden rape. I also just news googled sweden

    Edit: better link:

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/world/748589/Sweden-gang-rape-Afghanistan-gang/amp

    Paladin on
    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Options
    Panda4YouPanda4You Registered User regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    LostNinja wrote: »
    hsu wrote: »
    Speaking of not being able to deport undesirables...
    http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/fem-tonaringar-doms-for-grov-gruppvaldtakt/
    That's an article about 5 teenage Afghan refugees convicted of aggravated rape, with video evidence, whom Sweden refuses to deport once their sentence ends.

    Sure they could be potentially subjected to violence if they were deported back to Afghanistan, but since they already beat up and raped a teenager, I don't see why Sweden should give a rats ass what happens to them.

    "You've been charged with a crime and were found guilty! Anything that happens to you after this point is fair game; up to and including torture and death."

    Gee, that sure sounds like a winning strategy to me!

    We aren't talking about a minor offense though. I think rape and/or murder is a pretty fair place to draw that line.
    And I think there is no line, because you just don't do that shit in a civilized society.

    They committed a crime. They were sentenced, and they served that sentence. By rights, that should be the end of the matter. That it isn't is a huge problem in general, not just in the case of deportations.
    None of these fuckos are teenagers. :) It's just standard procedure to say you are, because that means an automatic stay , every expense paid by the government and get-out-of-jail cards.

    Max sentence for these scum, for rape, assault and death threats with a knife held against the boy (and filming the whole thing, of course) was 15 months in juvenile detention. These are not US penalties we're talking. :wink:

  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Panda4You wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    LostNinja wrote: »
    hsu wrote: »
    Speaking of not being able to deport undesirables...
    http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/fem-tonaringar-doms-for-grov-gruppvaldtakt/
    That's an article about 5 teenage Afghan refugees convicted of aggravated rape, with video evidence, whom Sweden refuses to deport once their sentence ends.

    Sure they could be potentially subjected to violence if they were deported back to Afghanistan, but since they already beat up and raped a teenager, I don't see why Sweden should give a rats ass what happens to them.

    "You've been charged with a crime and were found guilty! Anything that happens to you after this point is fair game; up to and including torture and death."

    Gee, that sure sounds like a winning strategy to me!

    We aren't talking about a minor offense though. I think rape and/or murder is a pretty fair place to draw that line.
    And I think there is no line, because you just don't do that shit in a civilized society.

    They committed a crime. They were sentenced, and they served that sentence. By rights, that should be the end of the matter. That it isn't is a huge problem in general, not just in the case of deportations.
    None of these fuckos are teenagers. :) It's just standard procedure to say you are, because that means an automatic stay , every expense paid by the government and get-out-of-jail cards.

    Max sentence for these scum, for rape, assault and death threats with a knife held against the boy (and filming the whole thing, of course) was 15 months in juvenile detention. These are not US penalties we're talking. :wink:

    And? Why is that along with Sweden's ability to extend sentences not long enough for rehabilitation?

  • Options
    FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    Jesus Christ. I've seen you guys argue for much harder penalties for college frat boys *accused* of rape, but now 1.5 years is just and anyone saying otherwise is some kind of macho man?

    Immigration is a two-way street. You are guests in that country and they have every reason and right to remove that privilege of you give them cause. If I invited guests into my home and they started wrecking up the place, damn right I'd kick them out.

    This just makes me think Sweden's justice system isn't equipped to deal with people who aren't born into or fully assimilated into their society.

  • Options
    OldSlackerOldSlacker Registered User regular
    All the articles also seem to be designed to maximise the outrage, as if the crime itself isn't horrible enough - they all refer to the victim as a "boy, under 15 years of age" and the perpetrators are all described as teenagers, two of which are 16 and 17.
    I'm unfamiliar, is up to 15 some sort of legal age bracket in Sweden or is it just a way for tabloids to insinuate the victim is younger than he actually is?

This discussion has been closed.