Can anyone answer this question for me?
Here was have a methamphetamine drug lab in a high rise unit in Sufferer's Parasite (Surfer's Paradise) on the Gold Coast (
Man, woman charged over drug lab) which was initially reported in the media as having "blown up" (ie: explosive-like).
Next we have a bloke in Brisbane who has made a bomb for whatever purpose (I can only *dream* that it was intended for the Big Brother house)(Bail refused for explosives accused).
Why then is the latter rushed before court and charged and held and is the focus of many media releases while the morons in the former are not?
It is not known for sure that the latter was a terrorist or what his intentions are - but we sure-as-hell know what the former were up to!
Is there a single suburb in any major city in Australia at all that doesn't have a meth lab in it? How do these people differ from other "terrorists"?
4 comments:
One of the biggest failings of post-911 thinking has been to prosecute terrorists as criminals.
It's better thinking to view all criminals as terrorists - even when we are not directly impacted by crime, it reduces our general quality of life by costing money to correct and instilling fear in the community.
We already refer to a 'war on crime' - time to start regarding these low lifes as enemy combatants.
-- Nick
Have to disagree but purely in semantics - I would suggest that they are not combatants.
They are the enemy of all right-thinking minded people though - as are political-correct types who want to tell the world how to live.
I'm not a fan of capital punishment due to the massive flaws in the legal system in Australia but I so *dearly* want to see corporal punishment introduced. Like Singapore has with the canings. Reasonable thinking does not work on most of those who want to stray to the wrong side of the law but a great heap of PAIN tends to make one think twice.
I'd apply for the job.
Perhaps it is that the victims of meth-amphetamine voluntarily pay for the chance to kill themselves whereas the victims of terrorists rarely have any choice.
Next question is for you to ask yourself why the above wasn't bleeding obvious to you in the first place.
And no, just because they both end up dead does not make for moral, ethical or intellectual equivalence.
Cheers.
I'm not talking about the victims of the 'terrorists' - I'm referring to those who create instill terror or create the drugs for which people can destroy their lives.
There really is no difference between someone who builds a bomb to kill people in the name of religion or someone who builds a drug lab to (indirectly) kill people in the name of the almighty dollar.
Their victims are seen as second class citizens. A bomber doesn't blow up people they respect. A drug maker/dealer doesn't have respect for those who inadvertantly choose to destroy themselves.
There needs to be a public gallows in every city with the ad campaign of "Swing a Dealer a day."
You don't treat the symptom - you treat the cause.
This, of course, isn't just about drug-dealers vs terrorists and which is worse - both groups are vermin and need to be eradicated.
Post a Comment