Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #76  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
Old May 3rd, 2011, 07:40 PM       
Quote:
Bin Laden was a special case, surely you knew that.
Well since we can just make special cases we should just make one against the whole middle east.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Tadao Tadao is offline
☆☆☆☆☆
Tadao's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2002
Old May 3rd, 2011, 07:41 PM       
Like we did for Saddam.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
WhiteRat WhiteRat is offline
Beloved Cunt
WhiteRat's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Old May 3rd, 2011, 07:52 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by kahljorn View Post
Well since we can just make special cases we should just make one against the whole middle east.
9/11 really ain't no thang.

As for the middle east WE'VE GOT TO NUKE THEM AND WE'VE GOT TO NUKE THEM NOW!
__________________
...and so Hurley said: "Get your money, man. Don't be no couch potato hustla."
Reply With Quote
  #79  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
Old May 3rd, 2011, 08:25 PM       


Quote:
Like we did for Saddam.
Almost said that but then decided somebody might say, "BUT SADDAM GOT A TRIAL" and then I'd have to say more stuff i dont wanna.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Esuohlim Esuohlim is offline
BOO! A SPOOPY GHOST :x
Esuohlim's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: TO-DO LIST: WATCH TWIN PEAKS. CALL MOM.
Old May 3rd, 2011, 09:12 PM       
WE WOULDN'T EVEN BE HAVING THIS DEBATE IF OSAMA WEREN'T FOUND, TALK ABBOTTABAD PLACE TO HIDE HUH
__________________


YOU MUST SPREAD SOME REPUTATION AROUND BEFORE GIVING IT TO SAM AGAIN
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Tadao Tadao is offline
☆☆☆☆☆
Tadao's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2002
Old May 3rd, 2011, 10:21 PM       
I don't know if I should hug you or punch you.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Pentegarn Pentegarn is offline
Clap if you love Dynamo
Pentegarn's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: In a dystopian future
Old May 3rd, 2011, 11:54 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteRat View Post
9/11 really ain't no thang.

As for the middle east WE'VE GOT TO NUKE THEM AND WE'VE GOT TO NUKE THEM NOW!
Buddy of mine once said "Hey, if you nuke the middle east till all that sand is just a solid sheet of glass, it'd be easier to see through that glass where all the oil is"

I d
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Tadao Tadao is offline
☆☆☆☆☆
Tadao's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2002
Old May 4th, 2011, 04:15 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by KIMBERLY DOZIER and ERICA WERNER, Associated Press
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110504/ap_on_re_us/us_bin_laden
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama said Wednesday he's decided not to release death photos of terrorist Osama bin Laden because their graphic nature could incite violence and create national security risks for the United States.

"There's no doubt we killed Osama bin Laden," the president said in an interview with CBS News. Obama said he had seen the death photo and there was no need to release the photograph or gloat. "There's no need to spike the football," he said.

The president said that for anyone who doesn't believe bin Laden is dead, "we don't think that a photograph in and of itself is going to make any difference."

"There are going to be some folks who deny it. The fact of the matter is you won't see Osama bin Laden walking on this earth again," said Obama.
The president made his comments in an interview Wednesday with CBS' "60 Minutes". Presidential spokesman Jay Carney read the president's quotes to reporters in the White House briefing room, ahead of the program's airing.
Here we go. If you have evidence, show it. This is not they way you deal with an information hungry society. All that transparency shit? Yeah fuck you. You've got to be hiding something. You say that it might insight retaliation? There will be retaliation either way, but now there will be more terrorist that believe he is still alive and more everyone else who believe you faked the whole thing.

If you did in fact kill Osama and you want to pull troops from those areas, then this is the dumbest thing to do. So now I have to think that there are lots of hidden agendas going on. All the way from faking it to get re-elected to with holding proof so that Al Qaeda gets riled up.

Fuck you government. Fuck you in the ass!
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Pentegarn Pentegarn is offline
Clap if you love Dynamo
Pentegarn's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: In a dystopian future
Old May 4th, 2011, 05:44 PM       
I am more interested in how they think the bin Laden pic would incite violence.

I do agree that a simple photo is not enough evidence because of how easy it is to photoshop things, which is why I say have a 'here's bin Laden's corpse on a marionette' parade

As for the "Spiking the football" comment, I think that falls short of the point. The reason we want the photo out there is not to quote 'spike the football' (though I am in favor of allowing people who want to to spike what's left of his head like a football) but because this is not the first time the government has claimed to have killed bin Laden. Their track record in accuracy regarding the living status of bin Laden has always been suspect at best. So why not put the evidence you have out there? You have had his body, show it off
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Tadao Tadao is offline
☆☆☆☆☆
Tadao's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2002
Old May 4th, 2011, 06:11 PM       
It's like saying to the people "Here is the good thing that we did, now here is the ammo to say that we didn't do it."
Reply With Quote
  #86  
WhiteRat WhiteRat is offline
Beloved Cunt
WhiteRat's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Old May 4th, 2011, 06:18 PM       
Wikileaks will have everything in a year or two. We're just gonna have to wait.
__________________
...and so Hurley said: "Get your money, man. Don't be no couch potato hustla."
Reply With Quote
  #87  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
Old May 4th, 2011, 10:08 PM       
the really stupid thing is that osama has like 50 million look-a-likes. the only way they could prove it is if: dudes got a dental record, his fingerprints are in a system o rhis dna. Maybe a birthmark?

only other way is if his organization collapses but i dunno even about that ;/

Quote:
I am more interested in how they think the bin Laden pic would incite violence.
i dunno about that man i think almost anything can incite muslim extremists to violence. but maybe im just being a jerk.
__________________
NEVER

Last edited by kahljorn : May 4th, 2011 at 11:15 PM. Reason: said obama instead of osama :O :O
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Dr. Boogie Dr. Boogie is offline
Funky Dynamite
Dr. Boogie's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Help, I'm lost!
Old May 4th, 2011, 10:59 PM       
Yeah, the whole "now the terrorists will really hate us" bit just seems like belaboring the obvious. It's not like we were about to sign some big accord with Al Qaeda.
__________________
Dr. Boogie: Everything is so simple when you have a rocket launcher for an arm!


Reply With Quote
  #89  
Shyandquietguy Shyandquietguy is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Old May 5th, 2011, 01:46 AM       
I think they should've put him in jail with a house arrest band you see in the movies and if Al Queada would ever break him out they would have to find hotel after hotel until they can break off the band. That way Osama learns a lesson and Al Queada can say Osama's awesome.

Then we get oil.

Well, I'm on the fence about the whole if Osama was given a chance to stay alive. Al Queada would probably be shit storming like hornets getting their nest wiped with a dick and be hurling bags of bombs in the streets until they get results or until we raze their last monster generator. But the question would be if that increase in violence would be worth letting the fucker go insane in solitary.

God damn it. I'm finally getting out of a political shell and all I have for security quality is the damn TSA thinking I was either drunk or holding a cough from a bad joint while I was being sent on medical leave from school due to a mid-life meltdown.

Fucking assholes.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Zhukov Zhukov is offline
Supa Soviet Missil Mastar
Zhukov's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tasmania
Old May 5th, 2011, 02:54 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pentegarn View Post
And if this were under the jurisdiction of the police, and the criminal were a citizen of the USA, and his crime were not an act of war against the US, your point might have merit. However since that is not the case, your point is empty anti America agenda driven bilge that I have gotten used to seeing from you.

What it was in fact was a military action, taken because Pakistan pretended to be helping the US track bin Laden but in reality at least part of their government was sheltering bin Laden. Or was the fact that this building he was in being mere miles from the Pakistani equivalent of West Point military academy lost on you?
It was military action against an international terrorist group, not war against another nation (no, not even Pakistan). Either way, morals still apply, and the laws that should pertain to war and war crimes should also still apply. Why? Because that would be what a president can call justice.

Quote:
And to answer your "what was my point" question it was that people like you love defending criminals but don't give a damn about their victims
Oh, right, this makes perfect sense. I forgot about how I don't care about the victims. What a stupid point to pretend you originally meant; you are the type of person that wants an eye for an eye, aren't you? Applying common rights and acts of decency to those guilty of crime does not mean you are denying empathy to their victims.


Quote:
Except in the constitution it states that America's laws are for American citizens. So your point is utter bullshit. We didn't bend the laws to suit our means, we constitutionally created an Article of War against Al Qaeda which was both voted on and ratified by all branches of government as stated in the US Constitution. If you really want to start talking law (specifically US law), I suggest you actually know about it first.
I didn't mean to imply that the US government broke laws to suit their agenda, I meant that they created laws to suit their agenda, which "constitutionally created an Article of War against Al Qaeda" sounds like to me.

I'm not talking US law, I'm talking international laws which the US says it upholds.

George Washington saying that every US citizen is equal, and deserves a fair trial, and deserves the right to vote, and deserves the protection of the police, military and legal arms of the government makes it a cop out when you can also just say "oh, that only applies to US citizens, we can do what we want to other people". Once again, I am not being technical on what the law states, and what actually happens in the reality of things, I'm talking about what should be justice, and what should be the standards that a nation created on aspiring to freedom should be attempting to achieve with how they deal with the whole world.


Quote:
So because Al Qaeda isn't a sovereign nation they are immune to being a military target? Really? Are you listening to yourself? Who should the US have sent then Mr. US Law expert? The Coast Guard? The Salvation Army? The Village People? Wouldn't matter who was sent because as long as it involves the US, you are going to side against whoever they are fighting.
No, they should have sent the military. I don't think you can declare war on terrorism, that's all, and I think you still need to apply the laws that you apply to yourself to your enemies. Treat others how you expect to be treated yourself etc.


Quote:
And who cares if they weren't sent in to capture him or not? If you have an issue with the US calling this justice, you'd better go back in time and get on Churchill's ass because in his day he said kill Hitler on site because he didn't want Hitler to be captured alive and use his trial as yet another propaganda forum. Which is why bin Laden being killed without a trial for a crime he publicly copped to is justice. It might not be equitable justice because he can only die once as opposed to thousands of times for every life he has been responsible for ending, but it is still justice.

The issue I think you have Zhukov is you are confusing justice as a concept with justice in a court of law. If a man who killed thousands, admitted to it, and then was killed by a guy who had the opportunity to end that monsters life is not justice to you, then I think we are done discussing this because your views on justice are skewed. It seems though you are splitting hairs because President Obama called it justice, and in your mind you think he means he feels bin Laden was given a fair trial by a jury of his peers. That was not what he meant by justice however.

Justice as a concept is what justice as a law is created to uphold.

This relates to what Tadao said about what you would want if your family was killed. To you, it's justice if your family's murderer is torn to shreds and is burnt alive. But that's not how a government should do things. Revenge isn't a great thing to base your nation's legal system, or foreign policy, on. With Osama it would have really shown that the US is at least committed to a tiny shred of equality in the eyes of the 'law', rather than just getting revenge (especially when most of your country wants revenge in such a way).





A secondary question: how many people do you have to kill (or in Osama's case, be accused of planning their deaths) to forgo a trial and succumb to a revenge killing? Is it a case by case basis?

As an aside, there were terrorist bombings in Bali a few years back that were done by a Indonesian Islamic terrorist group. The attacks were aimed at killing Australians, and 200 people (Australian and Balinese) were killed. Those responsible were put on trial in Indonesia and sentenced to death.

A lot of people in my country wanted the men responsible to be hanged, shot, boiled alive etc etc without a trial. The whole country felt like THEY were connected to the victims of the actual bombing (I'm not saying that is wrong), and that it would be fair to blow up the perpetrators in revenge. Both countries stuck to the format of a trial and punishment, and everyones blood lust was sated in the end.

Would it have been different if it was more people killed? If it was on Australian soil? I'd like to hope not, but in fact I think our military would have taken an opportunity to kill those responsible during a firefight, and get around the fact that we don't execute criminals anymore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteRat View Post
Wikileaks will have everything in a year or two. We're just gonna have to wait.
Haha, good point. I'd tend to only believe a government 100% if the information was taken from them anyway.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #91  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
Old May 5th, 2011, 03:18 AM       
i was gonna say, we should've told pakistan to arrest him and charge him with a crime. If they didn't then we would have an excuse to blow them up. Is there any kind of international law for aiding and abiding terrorists?

Although the crime was committed on american soil so i guess that gives us jurisdiction or whatever.. i dunno i dont know how that works exactly. Pakistan prolly should've extradited him to us. Personally i think putting pressure on Pakistan would've been more worthwhile than putting Osama to death.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Pentegarn Pentegarn is offline
Clap if you love Dynamo
Pentegarn's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: In a dystopian future
Old May 5th, 2011, 08:11 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
It was military action against an international terrorist group, not war against another nation (no, not even Pakistan). Either way, morals still apply, and the laws that should pertain to war and war crimes should also still apply. Why? Because that would be what a president can call justice.

Oh, right, this makes perfect sense. I forgot about how I don't care about the victims. What a stupid point to pretend you originally meant; you are the type of person that wants an eye for an eye, aren't you? Applying common rights and acts of decency to those guilty of crime does not mean you are denying empathy to their victims.


I didn't mean to imply that the US government broke laws to suit their agenda, I meant that they created laws to suit their agenda, which "constitutionally created an Article of War against Al Qaeda" sounds like to me.

I'm not talking US law, I'm talking international laws which the US says it upholds.

George Washington saying that every US citizen is equal, and deserves a fair trial, and deserves the right to vote, and deserves the protection of the police, military and legal arms of the government makes it a cop out when you can also just say "oh, that only applies to US citizens, we can do what we want to other people". Once again, I am not being technical on what the law states, and what actually happens in the reality of things, I'm talking about what should be justice, and what should be the standards that a nation created on aspiring to freedom should be attempting to achieve with how they deal with the whole world.


No, they should have sent the military. I don't think you can declare war on terrorism, that's all, and I think you still need to apply the laws that you apply to yourself to your enemies. Treat others how you expect to be treated yourself etc.





Justice as a concept is what justice as a law is created to uphold.

This relates to what Tadao said about what you would want if your family was killed. To you, it's justice if your family's murderer is torn to shreds and is burnt alive. But that's not how a government should do things. Revenge isn't a great thing to base your nation's legal system, or foreign policy, on. With Osama it would have really shown that the US is at least committed to a tiny shred of equality in the eyes of the 'law', rather than just getting revenge (especially when most of your country wants revenge in such a way).





A secondary question: how many people do you have to kill (or in Osama's case, be accused of planning their deaths) to forgo a trial and succumb to a revenge killing? Is it a case by case basis?

As an aside, there were terrorist bombings in Bali a few years back that were done by a Indonesian Islamic terrorist group. The attacks were aimed at killing Australians, and 200 people (Australian and Balinese) were killed. Those responsible were put on trial in Indonesia and sentenced to death.

A lot of people in my country wanted the men responsible to be hanged, shot, boiled alive etc etc without a trial. The whole country felt like THEY were connected to the victims of the actual bombing (I'm not saying that is wrong), and that it would be fair to blow up the perpetrators in revenge. Both countries stuck to the format of a trial and punishment, and everyones blood lust was sated in the end.

Would it have been different if it was more people killed? If it was on Australian soil? I'd like to hope not, but in fact I think our military would have taken an opportunity to kill those responsible during a firefight, and get around the fact that we don't execute criminals anymore.



Haha, good point. I'd tend to only believe a government 100% if the information was taken from them anyway.
I get it, you hate revenge, problem is justice and revenge are mired together. Otherwise all societies would be pacifists who would forever let all criminals off with warnings and slaps on the wrists. There would be no executions, no prison terms, and no law, which is of course what I think you want.

And trust me I am 100% sure you believe everything wikileaks says what with how you worship them religiously

By the way, the reason I say you don't care about the victims is not some sudden epiphany I came to in the last 24 hours or that I just made up, it is because all I ever see you do is defend the criminals and all but ignore the things the victims have done to them, if you have an issue with that, I suggest you change the way you are sir.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Zhukov Zhukov is offline
Supa Soviet Missil Mastar
Zhukov's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tasmania
Old May 5th, 2011, 12:14 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pentegarn View Post
I get it, you hate revenge, problem is justice and revenge are mired together. Otherwise all societies would be pacifists who would forever let all criminals off with warnings and slaps on the wrists. There would be no executions, no prison terms, and no law, which is of course what I think you want.
A world without executions... can you imagine it? The horror... the horror... It might seem crazy to you, but yes, that is what I want, being a communist and all.

Oh, and I'm not stupid; I know that justice and revenge are mired together, but not only is that not what your country, my country and most other countries pretend to stand for, but it shouldn't be what is acceptable or something to aim to achieve.

Quote:
And trust me I am 100% sure you believe everything wikileaks says what with how you worship them religiously



Quote:
By the way, the reason I say you don't care about the victims is not some sudden epiphany I came to in the last 24 hours or that I just made up, it is because all I ever see you do is defend the criminals and all but ignore the things the victims have done to them, if you have an issue with that, I suggest you change the way you are sir.
Once again: defending the rights of criminals doesn't mean you somehow take rights away from victims.

All I ever do is defend criminals? Sounds like a television drama. Please name a few of these criminals that I am constantly defending, just for my own personal interest. I think you will say Julian Assange but that's all I can think of off the top of my head, and his 'victims' are arguable.

-------------------------------------

So now they are saying that Osama wasn't defending himself and that he had surrendered. The official story seems to change a lot, How can you trust these people?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Tadao Tadao is offline
☆☆☆☆☆
Tadao's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2002
Old May 5th, 2011, 12:33 PM       
Man I miss the cartoon Heckle and Jeckle.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Pentegarn Pentegarn is offline
Clap if you love Dynamo
Pentegarn's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: In a dystopian future
Old May 5th, 2011, 06:46 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
A world without executions... can you imagine it? The horror... the horror... It might seem crazy to you, but yes, that is what I want, being a communist and all.

Oh, and I'm not stupid; I know that justice and revenge are mired together, but not only is that not what your country, my country and most other countries pretend to stand for, but it shouldn't be what is acceptable or something to aim to achieve.
Your words are empty because you flat out talk out of both sides of your mouth. You say you know justice and revenge are tied together, then raise an objection because the US illustrates this. You say you want a world without executions, but it is a naive desire. The whole point of a severe punishment is to deter those who might commit violence, but are afraid of the consequences from doing so. Maybe you think if we eliminate punishment then the end of crime will follow, but those of us not living in Fantasy Land know better.

And as an aside to the whole communist thing, didn't communist Russia start with a whole slew of executions without a trial?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
Once again: defending the rights of criminals doesn't mean you somehow take rights away from victims.
You are wrong, mercy to the guilty is treason to the innocent. There can be no compromise in this. I know you think there can though, so how do you propose we compromise with monsters like this? Talk them down from killing ten thousand people to only five thousand? Asking serial rapists to keep it to no more than one rape a month? You say executions need to be eliminated but you don't offer a solution that works to replace it. You aren't going to either because you know there isn't one, you are just full of wishes that are unrealistic and you point to those saying 'look how good and noble my ideals are' But they aren't, they are foolish, short sighted and dangerous to a cohesive society.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
All I ever do is defend criminals? Sounds like a television drama. Please name a few of these criminals that I am constantly defending, just for my own personal interest. I think you will say Julian Assange but that's all I can think of off the top of my head, and his 'victims' are arguable.
Assange is a good example, and saying his victims are arguable proves my point about how you don't give a damn about the victims, so thanks for that.

-------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
So now they are saying that Osama wasn't defending himself and that he had surrendered. The official story seems to change a lot, How can you trust these people?

That's a different discussion altogether, and one I touched on when I said that we have been lied to about bin Laden's living status before. But in the end I agree with how Churchill ordered his troops to handle Hitler. He basically said kill on sight because we do not want him using a trial to further spread his propeganda, we all know what he is,and we all know he needs to go. Just like bin Laden today.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Zhukov Zhukov is offline
Supa Soviet Missil Mastar
Zhukov's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tasmania
Old May 6th, 2011, 03:09 AM       
You're cracking me up here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pentegarn View Post
Your words are empty because you flat out talk out of both sides of your mouth. You say you know justice and revenge are tied together, then raise an objection because the US illustrates this.
No. I say I know that they are mired (your word, good choice) together, and I raise an objection to the US pretending that this is the pure and good justice that a decent country should aspire too.

Quote:
You say you want a world without executions, but it is a naive desire. The whole point of a severe punishment is to deter those who might commit violence, but are afraid of the consequences from doing so. Maybe you think if we eliminate punishment then the end of crime will follow, but those of us not living in Fantasy Land know better.
We don't have executions in my country, and our violent crime rate is much, much lower than in the USA. There are many, many factors, but executions certainly aren't the deterrent that you think they are. Are you saying that executing Osama will have scared radical Islamic terrorists into lowering their weapons? Surely not.

I don't think that the elimination of executions will end crime, no.

Quote:
And as an aside to the whole communist thing, didn't communist Russia start with a whole slew of executions without a trial?
No, revolutionary Russia had a lot of executions without trial, during a civil war. Start another thread if you want to talk about this, because I don't think you are interested in hearing what I have to say about the matter, you just want to get what you think is a low blow in at me.



Quote:
You are wrong, mercy to the guilty is treason to the innocent. There can be no compromise in this. I know you think there can though, so how do you propose we compromise with monsters like this? Talk them down from killing ten thousand people to only five thousand? Asking serial rapists to keep it to no more than one rape a month? You say executions need to be eliminated but you don't offer a solution that works to replace it. You aren't going to either because you know there isn't one, you are just full of wishes that are unrealistic and you point to those saying 'look how good and noble my ideals are' But they aren't, they are foolish, short sighted and dangerous to a cohesive society.
Uh, that is a very, very hardline point of view. NO MERCY TO CRIMINALS. I don't think it's worth me arguing about it with you since all I can say is "mercy to the guilty is NOT treason to the innocent".

How do I propose to control violent crimes without executions? Hmmm, I guess you could try lengthy prison sentences. God knows if that would ever gain popularity in any nation's legal system - but one day it might just happen.

For everyone else out there, here is a list of countries that execute:

China
Iran
Iraq
Saudi Arabia
USA
Yemen
Sudan
Vietnam
Syria
Japan
Egypt
Libya
Bangladesh
Thailand
Singapore
Botswana
Malaysia
North Korea

You are keeping good company, America. I guess every other country in the world just doesn't run as cohesive societies as these marvelous nations on the list.




Quote:
Assange is a good example, and saying his victims are arguable proves my point about how you don't give a damn about the victims, so thanks for that.
Assange is a bad example - who are his victims? Plus it's only one. Constantly defending criminals might require more than just Osama and arguably one more example. Jesus would have invited Osama over to his house and broken some bread with him, I think saying he should have gotten a trial is quite basic on the 'defending a mass murderer' scale.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Zhukov Zhukov is offline
Supa Soviet Missil Mastar
Zhukov's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tasmania
Old May 6th, 2011, 03:16 AM       
*note, that list is not ALL the countries that execute. There are countries that retain it but do not use it, and there are countries that have it for 'special circumstances'. There are 41 countries that regularly use it, that list was the main offenders.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Pentegarn Pentegarn is offline
Clap if you love Dynamo
Pentegarn's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: In a dystopian future
Old May 6th, 2011, 07:24 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
You're cracking me up here.
Trust me, you are cracking without my help

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
No. I say I know that they are mired (your word, good choice) together, and I raise an objection to the US pretending that this is the pure and good justice that a decent country should aspire too.
So now you object to them calling it 'pure and good' justice. I recall the word justice use, but not the words pure and good being used in the sentence you initially objected to. Well if you are not making your point, why not change what it is mid debate? Good strategy. Here's some irony/hypocrisy for you, remember when you posted this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
So now they are saying that Osama wasn't defending himself and that he had surrendered. The official story seems to change a lot, How can you trust these people?
Seems your official story just changed. Funny you took that line of debate then did the very same thing just now

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
We don't have executions in my country, and our violent crime rate is much, much lower than in the USA. There are many, many factors, but executions certainly aren't the deterrent that you think they are. Are you saying that executing Osama will have scared radical Islamic terrorists into lowering their weapons? Surely not.
I like how you selectively read what I say, did I not say the war on terror is like the war on drugs? A pointless endeavor? But that is besides the point, I never claimed executing him would stop terrorism, I said it was a justified thing to do. Did hitler dying stop people from practicing Nazism? No. Did Hitler need to be killed? Yes, and the only reason he never was was because he beat his hunters to the punch and killed himself (allegedly)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
I don't think that the elimination of executions will end crime, no.
Funny, you could have fooled me. But this goes back to that whole talking out of both sides of your mouth thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
No, revolutionary Russia had a lot of executions without trial, during a civil war. Start another thread if you want to talk about this, because I don't think you are interested in hearing what I have to say about the matter, you just want to get what you think is a low blow in at me.
No I was making a point about your inconsistent views, of course you would try and excuse/justify how communism's ugly birth was executed. (pun intended)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
Uh, that is a very, very hardline point of view. NO MERCY TO CRIMINALS. I don't think it's worth me arguing about it with you since all I can say is "mercy to the guilty is NOT treason to the innocent".

How do I propose to control violent crimes without executions? Hmmm, I guess you could try lengthy prison sentences. God knows if that would ever gain popularity in any nation's legal system - but one day it might just happen.
and America does that too with many more criminals than it executes, but I notice how you seem to ignore that little fact

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
For everyone else out there, here is a list of countries that execute:

China
Iran
Iraq
Saudi Arabia
USA
Yemen
Sudan
Vietnam
Syria
Japan
Egypt
Libya
Bangladesh
Thailand
Singapore
Botswana
Malaysia
North Korea

You are keeping good company, America. I guess every other country in the world just doesn't run as cohesive societies as these marvelous nations on the list.
I already pointed out how selective you are, no need to mention it again


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
Assange is a bad example - who are his victims? Plus it's only one. Constantly defending criminals might require more than just Osama and arguably one more example. Jesus would have invited Osama over to his house and broken some bread with him, I think saying he should have gotten a trial is quite basic on the 'defending a mass murderer' scale.
I already established his victims more than once, you ignore them because they some of them are American business owners and to you they have no rights for the crime of (gasp!) being rich

But as I said, you care about criminals, not victims, otherwise why fight so hard for bin Laden? Who fights this hard for a monster anyway? What sort of depraved human really takes the line you are taking? What went so wrong with you in your life that this... this is how you think and feel about society?
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Kitsa Kitsa is offline
teacup of sunshine
Kitsa's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: curator of the WTFbus museum
Old May 6th, 2011, 08:48 AM       
"They Knew he was There"
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:32 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.