Sadam's last minutes
-
You keep posting that same link, but as yet have offered no commentary to explain why. Do you just like to see people hang, or is there some point to it?
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milkI just find it a fascinating juxtapositioning of similar historic events. The first is a brutal public lynching of not only a toppled dictator, but several other people who happened to be associated with him by leftists. That event does not seem to have inspired a great deal of public debate at the time. Now, a toppled dictator, given a trial and access to every legal resource he denied to so many others, will be used as a pretext to promote an inherently leftist world view for as long as humanity has access to google. To me, its seems symptomatic of a rather bizarre and worrisome direction western civilization seems to be determined to take. If Saddam ahd been taken out by a more left leaning government, under exactly the same circumstances, his execution would have been a cause for celebration around the world. But, a more right wing government is not allowed to bask in any kind of success, every possible negative nuance becomes grossly exagerated and amplified by the power of the media and the internet to put the least favorable spin on the situation. It is all very Orwellian, and very disturbing, especially as there appears to be no means of peacefully contending with it.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
The radio news headlines this morning said his half brother and one other had been executed thism orning.
-
I just find it a fascinating juxtapositioning of similar historic events. The first is a brutal public lynching of not only a toppled dictator, but several other people who happened to be associated with him by leftists. That event does not seem to have inspired a great deal of public debate at the time. Now, a toppled dictator, given a trial and access to every legal resource he denied to so many others, will be used as a pretext to promote an inherently leftist world view for as long as humanity has access to google. To me, its seems symptomatic of a rather bizarre and worrisome direction western civilization seems to be determined to take. If Saddam ahd been taken out by a more left leaning government, under exactly the same circumstances, his execution would have been a cause for celebration around the world. But, a more right wing government is not allowed to bask in any kind of success, every possible negative nuance becomes grossly exagerated and amplified by the power of the media and the internet to put the least favorable spin on the situation. It is all very Orwellian, and very disturbing, especially as there appears to be no means of peacefully contending with it.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
You need to consider two things: 1) No western country other than the USA has carried out, allows or endorses executions in the twenty first century. 2) We are not in the 1940's anymore, sorry... What reaction did you expect?
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
I just find it a fascinating juxtapositioning of similar historic events. The first is a brutal public lynching of not only a toppled dictator, but several other people who happened to be associated with him by leftists. That event does not seem to have inspired a great deal of public debate at the time. Now, a toppled dictator, given a trial and access to every legal resource he denied to so many others, will be used as a pretext to promote an inherently leftist world view for as long as humanity has access to google. To me, its seems symptomatic of a rather bizarre and worrisome direction western civilization seems to be determined to take. If Saddam ahd been taken out by a more left leaning government, under exactly the same circumstances, his execution would have been a cause for celebration around the world. But, a more right wing government is not allowed to bask in any kind of success, every possible negative nuance becomes grossly exagerated and amplified by the power of the media and the internet to put the least favorable spin on the situation. It is all very Orwellian, and very disturbing, especially as there appears to be no means of peacefully contending with it.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
In ancient Greece they used to kill people using a brazen bull. The bull was a hollow brass sculpture that the victim was put into and then they lit a fire underneath it. The screams of the victim reportedly sounded like the bellowing of a bull. Didn't see those damn leftists complain about that either. But one little hanging and they get their panties in a bunch. :mad:
-
There are also unconfirmed reports that one of the two people they hanged today was decapitated :omg:
Wjousts wrote:
There are also unconfirmed reports that one of the two people they hanged today was decapitated
Very nasty. There is no excuse to justify this level of barbarism.
the last thing I want to see is some pasty-faced geek with skin so pale that it's almost translucent trying to bump parts with a partner - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before. -
I just find it a fascinating juxtapositioning of similar historic events. The first is a brutal public lynching of not only a toppled dictator, but several other people who happened to be associated with him by leftists. That event does not seem to have inspired a great deal of public debate at the time. Now, a toppled dictator, given a trial and access to every legal resource he denied to so many others, will be used as a pretext to promote an inherently leftist world view for as long as humanity has access to google. To me, its seems symptomatic of a rather bizarre and worrisome direction western civilization seems to be determined to take. If Saddam ahd been taken out by a more left leaning government, under exactly the same circumstances, his execution would have been a cause for celebration around the world. But, a more right wing government is not allowed to bask in any kind of success, every possible negative nuance becomes grossly exagerated and amplified by the power of the media and the internet to put the least favorable spin on the situation. It is all very Orwellian, and very disturbing, especially as there appears to be no means of peacefully contending with it.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
by leftists
No, by Communnist partisans. Get a dictionary. The terms are not synonymous.
Stan Shannon wrote:
pretext to promote an inherently leftist world view
What are you talking about? I'm curious. How is the "leftist world view" being promoted?
Stan Shannon wrote:
If Saddam ahd been taken out by a more left leaning government, under exactly the same circumstances, his execution would have been a cause for celebration around the world...
You believe that, but what is it based on? It seems your greatest criticisms are always about what others would think or would do if a theoretical event occurred.
-
I just find it a fascinating juxtapositioning of similar historic events. The first is a brutal public lynching of not only a toppled dictator, but several other people who happened to be associated with him by leftists. That event does not seem to have inspired a great deal of public debate at the time. Now, a toppled dictator, given a trial and access to every legal resource he denied to so many others, will be used as a pretext to promote an inherently leftist world view for as long as humanity has access to google. To me, its seems symptomatic of a rather bizarre and worrisome direction western civilization seems to be determined to take. If Saddam ahd been taken out by a more left leaning government, under exactly the same circumstances, his execution would have been a cause for celebration around the world. But, a more right wing government is not allowed to bask in any kind of success, every possible negative nuance becomes grossly exagerated and amplified by the power of the media and the internet to put the least favorable spin on the situation. It is all very Orwellian, and very disturbing, especially as there appears to be no means of peacefully contending with it.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
Now, a toppled dictator, given a trial and access to every legal resource he denied to so many others, will be used as a pretext to promote an inherently leftist world view for as long as humanity has access to google.
I'm not sure what inherently leftist view you are referring to. For my own part, I am opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances, but won't be losing any sleep over Saddam's demise, which is but one violent death among hundreds of thousands in Iraq. The concern that many had regarding the execution was that its overtly sectarian atmosphere bodes ill for Iraq's future governance.
John Carson
-
I just find it a fascinating juxtapositioning of similar historic events. The first is a brutal public lynching of not only a toppled dictator, but several other people who happened to be associated with him by leftists. That event does not seem to have inspired a great deal of public debate at the time. Now, a toppled dictator, given a trial and access to every legal resource he denied to so many others, will be used as a pretext to promote an inherently leftist world view for as long as humanity has access to google. To me, its seems symptomatic of a rather bizarre and worrisome direction western civilization seems to be determined to take. If Saddam ahd been taken out by a more left leaning government, under exactly the same circumstances, his execution would have been a cause for celebration around the world. But, a more right wing government is not allowed to bask in any kind of success, every possible negative nuance becomes grossly exagerated and amplified by the power of the media and the internet to put the least favorable spin on the situation. It is all very Orwellian, and very disturbing, especially as there appears to be no means of peacefully contending with it.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
What is funny is you chose as an analogy Mussolini's execution, rather than Nuremberg trial. Maybe a freudian slip about your belief on the fairness of SH trial?
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread
-
I just find it a fascinating juxtapositioning of similar historic events. The first is a brutal public lynching of not only a toppled dictator, but several other people who happened to be associated with him by leftists. That event does not seem to have inspired a great deal of public debate at the time. Now, a toppled dictator, given a trial and access to every legal resource he denied to so many others, will be used as a pretext to promote an inherently leftist world view for as long as humanity has access to google. To me, its seems symptomatic of a rather bizarre and worrisome direction western civilization seems to be determined to take. If Saddam ahd been taken out by a more left leaning government, under exactly the same circumstances, his execution would have been a cause for celebration around the world. But, a more right wing government is not allowed to bask in any kind of success, every possible negative nuance becomes grossly exagerated and amplified by the power of the media and the internet to put the least favorable spin on the situation. It is all very Orwellian, and very disturbing, especially as there appears to be no means of peacefully contending with it.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
It amazes me that in today's society, we have to be more humane than the perpetrators of the vilest crimes one human can inflict on another. I constantly hear cries for the punishment to be "life imprisonment". But what the "do-gooders" fail to think about are the people that are charged with keeping these people incarcerated. Who wouldn't like to be a guard in that type of facility? What does the "lifer" have to lose if he kills someone else or even kills a guard. What more can you do to him? Just life imprisonment? Tell you what, "do-gooders" ---why don't you volunteer to be the guards of these people you want to keep alive?? Then tell me one month later that you hands don't shake every time one of them is near you? Where were you when these "barbarians" you want to keep alive were torturing, maiming, slaughtering the innocents? Where were your voices then? What actions did you take? Or was it the proverbial "hand-wringing" that liberals always seem to be in a quandary of what to do --- what should we do? --- what should we do? Count me as one that says Saddam and his ilk died much too quickly. He didn't suffer nearly enough for the crimes he committed. And if today we had just gone through WW II and tried the Nazis and found them guilty of horrendous war crimes, would you be spouting off that they should also receive "life imprisonment"? Sorry, but I believe there are crimes that need to have a final solution that includes execution, and not by lethal injection. We save that for our animals --- not for human beings that make the conscious decision to slaughter 1000s of other human beings!
John P.
-
It amazes me that in today's society, we have to be more humane than the perpetrators of the vilest crimes one human can inflict on another. I constantly hear cries for the punishment to be "life imprisonment". But what the "do-gooders" fail to think about are the people that are charged with keeping these people incarcerated. Who wouldn't like to be a guard in that type of facility? What does the "lifer" have to lose if he kills someone else or even kills a guard. What more can you do to him? Just life imprisonment? Tell you what, "do-gooders" ---why don't you volunteer to be the guards of these people you want to keep alive?? Then tell me one month later that you hands don't shake every time one of them is near you? Where were you when these "barbarians" you want to keep alive were torturing, maiming, slaughtering the innocents? Where were your voices then? What actions did you take? Or was it the proverbial "hand-wringing" that liberals always seem to be in a quandary of what to do --- what should we do? --- what should we do? Count me as one that says Saddam and his ilk died much too quickly. He didn't suffer nearly enough for the crimes he committed. And if today we had just gone through WW II and tried the Nazis and found them guilty of horrendous war crimes, would you be spouting off that they should also receive "life imprisonment"? Sorry, but I believe there are crimes that need to have a final solution that includes execution, and not by lethal injection. We save that for our animals --- not for human beings that make the conscious decision to slaughter 1000s of other human beings!
John P.
jparken wrote:
do-gooders" fail to think about are the people that are charged with keeping these people incarcerated.
And I should care - Why? After all, as right-wingers on this board routinely point out - all work is voluntary, if someone doesn't like being a prison guard, he can go to night school and get another job. Simple as pie, problem solved.
-
jparken wrote:
do-gooders" fail to think about are the people that are charged with keeping these people incarcerated.
And I should care - Why? After all, as right-wingers on this board routinely point out - all work is voluntary, if someone doesn't like being a prison guard, he can go to night school and get another job. Simple as pie, problem solved.
That's the typical asshole reply I would expect from a liberal. Since THEY don't have to be the ones to do it, then the hell with it --- it's someone else's problem. Liberals just come up with their "solutions" and fail to think of any possible consequences to them. Better yet, why don't we parole these pieces of filth --- maybe one can move in next to you, and being a good liberal, you can take care of him.
John P.
-
That's the typical asshole reply I would expect from a liberal. Since THEY don't have to be the ones to do it, then the hell with it --- it's someone else's problem. Liberals just come up with their "solutions" and fail to think of any possible consequences to them. Better yet, why don't we parole these pieces of filth --- maybe one can move in next to you, and being a good liberal, you can take care of him.
John P.
jparken wrote:
a**hole
that's a typical jparken reply.:rolleyes:
-
It amazes me that in today's society, we have to be more humane than the perpetrators of the vilest crimes one human can inflict on another. I constantly hear cries for the punishment to be "life imprisonment". But what the "do-gooders" fail to think about are the people that are charged with keeping these people incarcerated. Who wouldn't like to be a guard in that type of facility? What does the "lifer" have to lose if he kills someone else or even kills a guard. What more can you do to him? Just life imprisonment? Tell you what, "do-gooders" ---why don't you volunteer to be the guards of these people you want to keep alive?? Then tell me one month later that you hands don't shake every time one of them is near you? Where were you when these "barbarians" you want to keep alive were torturing, maiming, slaughtering the innocents? Where were your voices then? What actions did you take? Or was it the proverbial "hand-wringing" that liberals always seem to be in a quandary of what to do --- what should we do? --- what should we do? Count me as one that says Saddam and his ilk died much too quickly. He didn't suffer nearly enough for the crimes he committed. And if today we had just gone through WW II and tried the Nazis and found them guilty of horrendous war crimes, would you be spouting off that they should also receive "life imprisonment"? Sorry, but I believe there are crimes that need to have a final solution that includes execution, and not by lethal injection. We save that for our animals --- not for human beings that make the conscious decision to slaughter 1000s of other human beings!
John P.
jparken wrote:
I constantly hear cries for the punishment to be "life imprisonment". But what the "do-gooders" fail to think about are the people that are charged with keeping these people incarcerated.
So we should kill people when it becomes inconvenient to keep them alive?
jparken wrote:
What does the "lifer" have to lose if he kills someone else or even kills a guard.
So we should kill people for crimes they might commit?
jparken wrote:
And if today we had just gone through WW II and tried the Nazis and found them guilty of horrendous war crimes, would you be spouting off that they should also receive "life imprisonment"? Sorry, but I believe there are crimes that need to have a final solution that includes execution, and not by lethal injection.
An ironic choice of words. Shows your true colors.
-
jparken wrote:
I constantly hear cries for the punishment to be "life imprisonment". But what the "do-gooders" fail to think about are the people that are charged with keeping these people incarcerated.
So we should kill people when it becomes inconvenient to keep them alive?
jparken wrote:
What does the "lifer" have to lose if he kills someone else or even kills a guard.
So we should kill people for crimes they might commit?
jparken wrote:
And if today we had just gone through WW II and tried the Nazis and found them guilty of horrendous war crimes, would you be spouting off that they should also receive "life imprisonment"? Sorry, but I believe there are crimes that need to have a final solution that includes execution, and not by lethal injection.
An ironic choice of words. Shows your true colors.
So, you think people like the Nazis who perpetrated the Holocaust should be given life terms? Kind fo shows your TRUE COLORS too doesn't it?
John P.
-
So, you think people like the Nazis who perpetrated the Holocaust should be given life terms? Kind fo shows your TRUE COLORS too doesn't it?
John P.
I'm curious, where did WJousts state an opinion on the Nuremberg trials? Fabricating opinions- kinda shows your true colors:rolleyes:
-
jparken wrote:
I constantly hear cries for the punishment to be "life imprisonment". But what the "do-gooders" fail to think about are the people that are charged with keeping these people incarcerated.
So we should kill people when it becomes inconvenient to keep them alive?
jparken wrote:
What does the "lifer" have to lose if he kills someone else or even kills a guard.
So we should kill people for crimes they might commit?
jparken wrote:
And if today we had just gone through WW II and tried the Nazis and found them guilty of horrendous war crimes, would you be spouting off that they should also receive "life imprisonment"? Sorry, but I believe there are crimes that need to have a final solution that includes execution, and not by lethal injection.
An ironic choice of words. Shows your true colors.
-
Wjousts wrote:
So we should kill people when it becomes inconvenient to keep them alive?
Why not? we already do it with our children.
You may be right
I may be crazy
-- Billy Joel --Within you lies the power for good, use it!!!
-
jparken wrote:
I constantly hear cries for the punishment to be "life imprisonment". But what the "do-gooders" fail to think about are the people that are charged with keeping these people incarcerated.
So we should kill people when it becomes inconvenient to keep them alive?
jparken wrote:
What does the "lifer" have to lose if he kills someone else or even kills a guard.
So we should kill people for crimes they might commit?
jparken wrote:
And if today we had just gone through WW II and tried the Nazis and found them guilty of horrendous war crimes, would you be spouting off that they should also receive "life imprisonment"? Sorry, but I believe there are crimes that need to have a final solution that includes execution, and not by lethal injection.
An ironic choice of words. Shows your true colors.
Wjousts wrote:
So we should kill people for crimes they might commit?
Yes. That's the only reason I support the death penalty. It's the only way to ensure that a vicious criminal never kills again. Someone who's in prison for life (with no chance of parole) has zero motivation to become a better person, in fact, quite the opposite since he's got nothing to lose.
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. - Friedrich Nietzsche
-
Wjousts wrote:
So we should kill people for crimes they might commit?
Yes. That's the only reason I support the death penalty. It's the only way to ensure that a vicious criminal never kills again. Someone who's in prison for life (with no chance of parole) has zero motivation to become a better person, in fact, quite the opposite since he's got nothing to lose.
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. - Friedrich Nietzsche
2 practical reasons why, in the US that might not apply. It actually costs the state more to execute a criminal than it does to house him for life. There are super-security prisons in the US that isolate individuals so completely it can drive people crazy(so even a life without parole individual does still have something to lose).
-
I'm curious, where did WJousts state an opinion on the Nuremberg trials? Fabricating opinions- kinda shows your true colors:rolleyes:
I never purported to say he did mention anything about the Nuremburg trials ---- seems to me that I DIDN'T EITHER!! You liberals are good at making things up and putting words in other people's mouths!
John P.
