Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
A) Yeah, I hear he has this Jean Grey telekinetic mutant power thing going on. Because of course, taking away his communication privileges would still leave his ability to mentally contact his cohorts I'm sure.B) Yes, it is completely different from ending someone's life literally, as in causing them to cease being alive and taking away their freedom to do things that make their life worth anything. What part of this do you genuinely not grasp? Curious.
I think it's extremely hypocritical to put him to death because....he killed. Not only that but it would cause more trouble than it's worth.
It wouldn't literally be torture with intent, would it? No. Let's not confuse torture with imprisonment and subsequent torturous effects in a person. You're already very far into hyperbole.
-AC
lets not let you decide what the term torture means for everyone......peoples fears are all different.
your A piece I am just gonna laugh about yeah ok nice touch there what are his hands missing so he cannot communicate?
AC you feel so vindicated and justified by taking this path of nonexecution so who cares what you find hypocrtical. You don't believe in it, its not fair, killing is bad whatever........your opinion so save your "logic" piece because it doesn't have to fit this mold.
Just so you have an idea about terrorists...........they don't need an excuse to cause terror........actually giving them a reason to act on diminshes the affect because people expect it. So killing Suddam isn't going to be any sort of catalyst you think it might be.......
Originally posted by Imagawa666
Lets put him in jail, and then quietly in the night kill him and make it look like a suicide. Nuf said.
😂 ha ha ;
It could have been so much easier and cheaper had they throne a grenade down that hole when they found him.
Considering the trial, which is really expensive due to all the security measures, it would have been far economical.
Before people start posting links or arguments about the costs of the death penalty. Please be aware that the DPIC is actually an "Anti-Capital Punishment" website. Whatever they claim or even declare as facts...are subject to be disputable. It is simpy a bias website and look at their board of directors. Most of them are lawyers and we all know lawyers usually twist things around to win cases in trials. Please be aware of them.
Originally posted by Imagawa666
Maybe..... I twould be the best from of vindication. Remember everyone can be redeemed. But some can only be redeemed through death.
Yeah but here is my question. They could have killed him. The reward was for either his capture or the confirmation of his death. Which basically meant Dead or Alive.
If it was cheaper to have him dead, why did US troops bring him in alive? They wanted him alive.
Originally posted by WindDancer
Before people start posting links or arguments about the costs of the death penalty. Please be aware that the DPIC is actually an "Anti-Capital Punishment" website. Whatever they claim or even declare as facts...are subject to be disputable. It is simpy a bias website and look at their board of directors. Most of them are lawyers and we all know lawyers usually twist things around to win cases in trials. Please be aware of them.
Is it? I did not know that, I just googled 'death penalty' and got that.
Though I've always heard and been told that it's cheaper to imprison someone than to execute them.
Originally posted by soleran30
lets not let you decide what the term torture means for everyone......peoples fears are all different.
No, I think you'll find that the torture you are implying he will receive in prison is nothing like the torture he put people through. It's a torturous experience, not literal torture.
Originally posted by soleran30
your A piece I am just gonna laugh about yeah ok nice touch there what are his hands missing so he cannot communicate?
If you believe the man is capable of anything serious once locked away with no priviliges, then I laugh back.
Originally posted by soleran30
AC you feel so vindicated and justified by taking this path of nonexecution so who cares what you find hypocrtical. You don't believe in it, its not fair, killing is bad whatever........your opinion so save your "logic" piece because it doesn't have to fit this mold.
Apparantly you, or you wouldn't be replying or commenting on it.
It's not about what my opinion is on killing. It's about what do you believe will be achieved by killing a man...BECAUSE it's "wrong" to kill. Only serving to make him a martyr. Where as locking him up, save for your pitiful cost argument, is clearly the better way of doing things?
He's locked up, he can't communicate enough to do any kind of damage. Terrorists have no martyr.
You're more or less saying that torture (which imprisonment isn't literally) is worse...so kill him. Like it or not, there's no logic there. So don't go all Charlie's Angels on me with "Who cares what you find hypocritical?" Evidently you are replying to me.
Originally posted by soleran30
Just so you have an idea about terrorists...........they don't need an excuse to cause terror........actually giving them a reason to act on diminshes the affect because people expect it. So killing Suddam isn't going to be any sort of catalyst you think it might be.......
Giving them a reason...diminishes the effect of an attack...because people expect it...
Yes. I'm sure any families who have lost people to terrorist attacks would argue that if they KNEW it was coming, they'd feel better. I'm sure that'd solve big problems in the middle east.
Terrorist: YOU KILLED SADDAM! NOW WE'VE KILLED MANY AMERICAN INNOCENTS!
Government: AHA! BUT WE KNEW YOU WOULD!
Terrorist: Yeah but!.....F*CK!
Let's try to apply some intelligence and rationality to the debate please.
-AC
Originally posted by Lana
Is it? I did not know that, I just googled 'death penalty' and got that.Though I've always heard and been told that it's cheaper to imprison someone than to execute them.
It has received criticism in past. But that doesn't mean they're completely bias. They may have very good arguments to provide. But we can't really take everything they say. Much more research is always helpful.
Originally posted by GCG
Yeah but here is my question. They could have killed him. The reward was for either his capture or the confirmation of his death. Which basically meant Dead or Alive.If it was cheaper to have him dead, why did US troops bring him in alive? They wanted him alive.
To humiliate him him be putting him on trail for his crimes. Seeing him judged would be a humilation for Saddam. The people may relise that something good has come out of this war.With Saddam gone we can try and build a futre for these people. With Oil, Iraq will become one of the richest nations on earth. Now is the time to make the final push against the insurgents. With them gone Iraq will prosper like never before.
AC keep your logic out of any discussion you want to theorize about terrorists with since the entire premise of terror is an emotional state not logical one.........
"It's a torturous experience, not literal torture."
What are you some politician? Stop twisting words torture is what someone experiences....emotional or physical.
If you think a man's words don't change people or incite action you must be blind.......it only takes one person to believe and follow through with conviction and you end up with a new faction for saddam seriously .
Terrorists don't need a reason to attack other then to strike terror to the masses, they strike anywhere anytime.........your application of "logic" to terror is blind.......
Originally posted by Imagawa666
To humiliate him him be putting him on trail for his crimes. Seeing him judged would be a humilation for Saddam. The people may relise that something good has come out of this war.With Saddam gone we can try and build a futre for these people. With Oil, Iraq will become one of the richest nations on earth. Now is the time to make the final push against the insurgents. With them gone Iraq will prosper like never before.
Therfore you admit that its a kangaroo court 🙄
Originally posted by soleran30
AC keep your logic out of any discussion you want to theorize about terrorists with since the entire premise of terror is an emotional state not logical one.........
Logic still applies doesn't it? You're not stupid are you? Don't act like it then. Killing someone because they killed, isn't logical. Putting them in prison and possibly solving and preventing many worse problems, is.
Originally posted by soleran30
"It's a torturous experience, not literal torture."
What are you some politician? Stop twisting words torture is what someone experiences....emotional or physical.
Then it's a torturous emotional experience isn't it? It's not like him torturing those people. It's not a single person inflicting it upon him.
Originally posted by soleran30
If you think a man's words don't change people or incite action you must be blind.......it only takes one person to believe and follow through with conviction and you end up with a new faction for saddam seriously.
Right.
So....does he do that with the telekinetics? What's the deal here? If he has no means of communication, no privileges, nothing...how does he do it?
Go on.
Originally posted by soleran30
Terrorists don't need a reason to attack other then to strike terror to the masses, they strike anywhere anytime.........your application of "logic" to terror is blind.......
Exactly.
So let's not give them a reason that will probably cause even more.
-AC
"Logic still applies doesn't it? You're not stupid are you? Don't act like it then. Killing someone because they killed, isn't logical. Putting them in prison and possibly solving and preventing many worse problems, is."
and since you asked me logic isn't the drive to terror. Logic=thinking, terror=feeling. Don't try and tell someone how to feel or how they will feel or what they can feel because you THINK.
Your assuming that jail is the solution from your own coveted logic piece.......whatever.....lets you sleep at night.
"Then it's a torturous emotional experience isn't it? It's not like him torturing those people. It's not a single person inflicting it upon him."
Until you sat through what "those"people did you aren't really in a position to tell us how they felt........ok tell yeah what here are 2 simple questions for you.
1) Have you served a significant (ie 5 years or more) time in prison...any kind.....then please elaborate on your knowledge and how that made you feel.....
2) Have you ever been tortured deliberatly where you had no choice but to sit and take it......if so tell me how you felt....ok
Originally posted by soleran30
and since you asked me logic isn't the drive to terror. Logic=thinking, terror=feeling. Don't try and tell someone how to feel or how they will feel or what they can feel because you THINK.
You're applying that to what exactly? Where does that particular definition of logic apply to you?
Where's the logic in killing him? What many greater positives will it achieve that imprisonment won't?
Originally posted by soleran30
Your assuming that jail is the solution from your own coveted logic piece.......whatever.....lets you sleep at night.
No, I'm saying it's more logical and solves more problems than it causes, because it does.
Originally posted by soleran30
Until you sat through what "those"people did you aren't really in a position to tell us how they felt........ok tell yeah what here are 2 simple questions for you.1) Have you served a significant (ie 5 years or more) time in prison...any kind.....then please elaborate on your knowledge and how that made you feel.....
2) Have you ever been tortured deliberatly where you had no choice but to sit and take it......if so tell me how you felt....ok
1) I haven't no.
2) No I haven't.
Now answer me this? Have you? If you haven't been through both, to the degree that a prisoner has and to the degree that one of Saddam's captives has, you have as much right to comment as I do.
Now let me ask you a question:
What's worse, torturing many people with gases and brutal physical torture, or being in prison with a bed and toilet facilities, for your crimes....forever?
-AC
"No, I'm saying it's more logical and solves more problems than it causes, because it does."
This you are assuming unless you can see into the future....can you....
You're applying that to what exactly? Where does that particular definition of logic apply to you?
"Where's the logic in killing him? What many greater positives will it achieve that imprisonment won't?"
You are using logic far to often and perhaps not in the correct context. Maybe a better question is how can you rationalize the killing of him.......how will it benefit anyone greater then imprisonment? As I have said I don't think we should waste a penny to shack him up. The greater positives you should be thinking about is "what do we gain by holding him for the rest of his life?" Well what is it.....do we become an icon for justice or a hypocrasy for torture?
"What's worse, torturing many people with gases and brutal physical torture, or being in prison with a bed and toilet facilities, for your crimes....forever?"
the worst tortures aren't physical they are mental. After a time physical pain subsides mental is alive if you have breathe and can think. What you're asking me to do is to say which is a better torture....well use your logic and you tell me🙂
and the longest I stayed in jail was overnight on an unpaid ticket🙂 That was long enough for me to know thats not my kinda place.
Originally posted by Inspectah Deck
How can you keep logic out of a dicussion?
If anyone else would like to learn about this interesting subject, simply visit the internet based website www.killermovies.com, and read one of the various threads contained thereupon.