Of course done right (and presumeably will be in this case) it's as instant as possible. Long drop and a crack and the neck is broken...Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurvy
Wiki it.
Printable View
Of course done right (and presumeably will be in this case) it's as instant as possible. Long drop and a crack and the neck is broken...Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurvy
Wiki it.
I know, 30 minutes is much too short. An hour would've been better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurvy
CR
no death at all would be better :shame:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I find it ironic that people that believe themselves to have the greatest appreciation for freedom in their own lives also have such disregard for life and a taste for vengeance. Justice, go ahead. Vengeance, you convince me not.
Like I said, wondrous primitive instincts we have here.
What's the point of suffering, or vengeance, or death? To quench your inner bloodthirst; to make your armchair justice so much more appealing; to pretend the world is going to be truly better off as a broken man -- responsible as he was of countless crimes -- is killed off and reduced to mere symbolism?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keba
I don't Care, I really don't. He Derserved to Die. Sticking him in Jail would be a waste of time. Having him died a old man? Really makes me sick to read some of you people's posts about letting him live, really does :no:
I think Antiochus answers this better than i could....Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
:2thumbsup:Quote:
What's the point of suffering, or vengeance, or death? To quench your inner bloodthirst; to make your armchair justice so much more appealing; to pretend the world is going to be truly better off as a broken man -- responsible as he was of countless crimes -- is killed off and reduced to mere symbolism?
There is a practice on farms called culling. You cull from the herd the cattle that don't have the features that you desire... often this includes aggresive animals. So a death sentence does not have to be seen as an act of revenge, it is us helping evolution progress they way we want to. Just like having special cribs for premature babies so that we can bend evolution to our desires.
World is woefully overpopulated. So as a practically resort we should cull out the most violent or should we leave them in charge and let them cull out a lot of others thereby helping to curtail the worlds population explosion?
In the end has Saddams inhumanity to individual men been a humane boon to all of mankind?
barbed tongue cutting my own cheek
:hanged:
The smiley face should be eviler looking...
With a moustache too...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Um No m8. That is what we call genocide, not culling.
Did you read the quote you posted?
:clown:
Take it down a few notches there, cowboy. Saddam is going to be killed; you're getting your vengeance. Your world should be a happy little place right now. What do you care if a few of us misguided hippies and Christians don't want to see more death? Don't make yourself sick over it.Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
BTW, I find ginger ale always helps when I'm feeling nauseous...
:yes:
Actually for Saddam the death pently does not equate to justice. The man was a despot who had absolute control over his population. The fitting punishment for such a man would be to have him locked up for the rest of his life in a little cage with him having to answer and immediately obey each individual that provides him a task to accomplish. And allow some of the people to come up with some really hard tasks that individuals normally don't like doing. Which for a former despot will be even harder.
If the new government of Iraq can make a mockery of the man - his influence will decrease significantly.
“Someone Who Killed Thousands Of People Should Have Life?” Does it apply for every body?:beam:
“And it took the most powerful nation in the world two separate illegal invasions to bring our great man down. And even then, facing the full might of the US Armed Forces, he was able to defy them for a time. And when they finally got their hands on him, they orchestrated a trial and executed him, because they were afraid of him”. Exactly, he will become the flag for the next terrorist generation, the Arab “Che”, the Robin Hood of the Mesopotamia. How long it will take, I don’t know, but if you see than for some Hitler and Stalin are still heroes…:inquisitive:
Ah, so killing one man is okay, but killing a thousand is not?Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
Where does the line of acceptable find itself? Two lives? Ten? A hundred? Where does it suddenly stop being acceptable to execute people, and why is that line there? Why such an arbitrary line, why not place it a bit more forward, so that more justice can be done? And why stop there, why not even more forward?
It is a very slippery slope you are walking on.
I wonder what revisionist came up with the bolded text in this quote. Especially the part about 2 seperate illegal invasions. It seems someone has distorted the truth a great deal with those words......Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Er, that was exactly the point.
So, dying an old broken man in prison isn’t suffering, vengeance and eventually death?Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
I’m a sucker for closure and would just as soon see him taken care of permanently. The vision of him every few years as the news checks up on him is a little too much IMO (and to see hear about his book deal, movie script, etc). Kind of like how we get to see Charlie Manson every 7 when he is up for parole.
And why deny our primitive instincts in this case when we embrace them in others? We are who we are.
Not that my opinion matters to the powers that be, but I say let him swing so we can close the door on the topic forever.
“I wonder what revisionist came up with the bolded text in this quote. Especially the part about 2 seperate illegal invasions. It seems someone has distorted the truth a great deal with those words......”: Er, I think there is a misunderstanding here and it is my fault. The first sentence refers to a guy who didn’t see why Saddam should life and my answer was quite ironic when I thought about some useful battles where thousand of soldiers died with no reasons or purpose (Nivel, Mangin, Franchet d’Esperay, for the French). The second sentence was about how the death of Saddam will be used as martyr, later.:shame:
Sounds good. The first part I had a major problem with since it is a gross distortion of the truth, but I knew it was not you that stated that. I just wondered where it came from.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
The second part - I sort of agree with you. Executing Saddam makes him a martyr, it would be better for the new Iraqi government to make him a pirrah (SP) without executing him.
I agree with you there will be difficulties with placing the line.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keba
but don't you think there's a huge difference between one man and THOUSANDS?
There will be no need of placing a line here since there are thousands of people killed. Not a few. For me.. I think the death penalty is too light for him.. the word beast would be a compliment for him..
This men deserves the worst penalty there is.
I have often heard people argue that we should not "make them a martyr."
Why?
Could someone cite for me a few examples of where someone's "martyrdom" generated a significantly different result in some conflict?
Che' Guevera -- executed in Bolivia after a string of defeats. No pro-soviet revolutions succeeded as a result of his example.
John Brown -- executed following the raid on Harper's Ferry. No slave rebellion erupted. Abolitionists did not leap forward to destroy the South. Ending slavery did not become an objective of the Union until after 1863 and even that measure was, initially, more of an expediency.
By contrast, the Shah of Iran chose not to kill Khomeni and the European powers chose not to kill Napoleon Bonaparte so as not to create a "martyr" and then these exiles returned and kicked their political opponents out (btw, on the next try, someone made sure Napoleon was poisoned).
I don't favor the death penalty, but I've alwasy been skeptical of this "martyr" argument.
The why is because some believe that the current Iraqi government is nothing other then a puppet government of the United States and that the trail was nothing other then a sham.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
At work so I can't provide research material for this one. The Islamic Revolution gained significant ground from past martyr's of the Shah's.Quote:
Could someone cite for me a few examples of where someone's "martyrdom" generated a significantly different result in some conflict?
“I don't favour the death penalty, but I've always been sceptical of this "martyr" argument”: And what if the Romans would have sentence Christ to ASBO, or community work?
“Could someone cite for me a few examples of where someone's "martyrdom" generated a significantly different result in some conflict?” It is tough question, but yes it worked: The Thermopiles, Stalingrad, Valmy… When the mystic aspect takes off, it can prologue a battle, Dien Bien Phu for the French in Viet Nam. This aspect can’t be deny, and the “Martyrs” are part of the building of this spirit.
Joan of Arc was more efficient as a martyr than as warrior… In April, the Foreign Legion celebrates Camerone where 40 legionnaires choose to die to protect a convoy. This fact, this battle, still give to the Foreign Legion this cachet, which participates in what makes the Legion an elite unit.
More seriously, a martyr won’t win a battle. But you can’t deny that Che Guavara is more efficient in recruiting now than he was in Bolivia. It is this capacity to create a myth and then to recruit which is the use of a martyr. John Brown’s body is still marching and it is difficult to evaluate how Americans were convinced by his cause, but his death probably awake some. How many is difficult to evaluate, but the Armies of the Union marched on.
Wel is isn't supposed to go like that and 30minutes versus a lifetime, I wander.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
And why is there a difference between ruthlessly killing one man or a thousand?Quote:
Originally Posted by GreatEmperor
And where is that point? Where is that difference? How many lives before it becomes unacceptable? Why maintain the line at that point? After all, execution is justice, is it not? So, how far does that line of acceptability go?
Answer me this, and you will get no more comments from me about this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keba
Killing Thousands of people is ok, but killing the man who ordered the massarces are not? Wow, Real Smart people :no:
Actually very smart. A long prison sentence and dying of old age in prison, but getting tv to see how your opponents and their children prosper... perfect modern revenge.
Irak prosper? He's got to get quite old then, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
It came from me. I don't believe that bogus crap, but I'm just telling you what the party line among hot-blooded Sunni Muslims will be if Saddam gets executed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
I do not believe in executing Saddam (or anyone for that matter). I do not believe that the US conducted two "illegal" invasions, or that Saddam held off the combined might of the US forces. I'm just trying to say how it will be portrayed.
Just seeing him in Jail for Life isn't right. Making him suffer before he gets excuted is far more better.
Kill him and kill him quick! Get him out of the world before he can do more destruction! Don't toy, don't piss people off, just put the murderer/rapist/terrorist/torturer to death!
Ah, but what is that prison's purpose?Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
To remove him from society; however, this call for death penalty specific to this thread is simple bloodlust, in which the last couple posts demonstrates.
We are safe from afar; we are safe to judge him and be amused at his hanging corpse. We are safe to be outraged and angry and call him names while most of us did not even suffer from it -- a few may have family members who died fighting against him, a few might fought against him themselves, a few suffered, directly or indirectly, under his crimes; but most of us simply sit in front of our computers and express satisfaction at yet another death.
Mind you, I have not truly expressed opinion at this particular case. In my opinion, the Iraqis, as a sovereign nation, and as a group of people who directly suffers from his crimes, has, at least theoretically, agreed to the execution of one of their own. As much as I despise the death penalty in all usages and forms, I do not believe I have much ground to say against such a decision when the country I resides in still refuses to give up the very same practice, and appears to embrace even more bloodlust at the same time.
This sentence and the whole "trial" were completely illegitimate and bogus. The first judge might have tried to give Saddam a bit of a fair trial, so the puppet government removes him and puts in a puppet judge. :idea2:
I notice how the corrupt media always report "Under Iraq law, there is a the death penalty by hanging".
Actually, under "Iraq law" there was no grounds to charge Saddam with anything because there are provisions in Iraq's Constitution that said the President of Iraq can't even be charged for that kind of stuff.
Media are a bunch of a incompetent hypocrites.
While in power, Saddam WAS Iraqi law. Of course he couldn't contravene it. However, he did lose the war. The winners then get to decide the loser's fate. An old story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaros
Daes d'mar, the game of kings, power politics....label it what you will, the stakes are pretty high and "all in" has a pretty total meaning.
Prison is not a removal from society, it is only a separator.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
To some people I believe it is bloodlust, but for me (his crimes are enough for me but I am willing to capitol punish more often than most) it is more about moving on. I think it is possible but it will be more difficult with Saddam commenting (letters, interviews, phone conversations, etc.) on current events via the media.