Saddam sentenced to death

[URL="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15567363/?GT1=8717"]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15567363/?GT1=8717[/URL]

Can't say I didn't see that coming.

They're gonna hang him?

A call to our medevil and savage past:)

Good riddance.

I saw it coming but I was still surprised. Mainly because of the hanging part.

That **** better hit the net when it happens.

Net nothin! They better televise that ****!

It's going to suck on TV, because I'll have to wait through people talking about stuff I don't care about.

I can't wait until someone pops up a reason as to why it's cruel for the people to hang Saddam. Because you know it's coming.

This is why they aren't doing it here.

Hmm I'm not sure what to think of this.

[quote=Fei-on Castor]I can't wait until someone pops up a reason as to why it's cruel for the people to hang Saddam. Because you know it's coming.

Actually, lethal injection would seem more appropriate, but I honestly don't care about how they kill him.

Everybody and their dog has an IED over there, why not just use one of those!

Surely to keep with Iraqi tradition stoning would be a good option. They could charge money. Boost Iraq's economny while we're at it!

It's like New Years in Iraq since his verdict.

lol, I wasn't suprised when I heard the verdict of death, but WAS suprised to hear it was by hanging. I wish WE still did it by hanging. :(

Poor guy.

They shouldnt kill him. That is my opinion.

I'm just amused at the timing. I hear if this doesn't swing the polls they're going to whip out Osama's body tomorrow.

After they hang him they should tell a bunch of Mexicans that there is a pinata so they come beat his dead body.

Why? Because it'd be kind of funny.

I'm also amused by the hypocrisy of world leaders who are against the death penalty supporting it here. John Howard, our bastard of a prime minister, being a case in point.

Killing him serves no purpose except to make him a martyr, and to make primitive people say 'two wrongs make a right, oh yeah awesome' or something like that.

It's funny how people don't realise that:
Because of the US being an *** in the UN, tousands of people have died because of sanctions
Because the US put Saddam there in the first place, many people died
Because the US decicded to bomb Iraq, thousands of civilians died'
Because the US government is retarded enough to put Rumsfeld in charge of fixing up Iraq, thousands of civilians died
Because the US government decided to invade, they caused hundreds of thousands, if not a million direct/indirect deaths.

The US is responsible for far, far more deaths of innocent civilians, in a far shorter length of time. And the US has to be more consistent. It didn't care when a mass murderer ten times worse than Saddam was sentenced to, not death, but life, but since Saddam's death will serve their party better in the elections, they're going for his throat.

No civilised person supports the death penalty. If you do and you think you're civilised, then you're mistaken.

2 of those things are true and 2 of those things are slightly true. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to work out which.

I say let the Iraqi people decide what to do with him. Oh wait...


hey guys, I didn't hear about you protesting the anniversary of this travesty http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/meetthedefendants.html

1)random is an idiot, again
2) hipocrasy, etc, shouldnt kill him
3) for the record, yeah, killing the nuremburg guys does sort of make hypocrits out of the whole thing

*** ****it BJ, not that old bug-bear again.

Those two positions only contradict logically if you support abortion because you're pro-killing and oppose the death penalty because you're anti-killing.

However virtually no-one actually takes those two positions.

I'm against the death penalty because I'm deeply incomfortable with the idea of a state excercising that sort of cold, deliberative decision to instruct somebody to terminate a life. I also support the right to abort because I don't think the state should have power to make that decision FOR people.

Whereas John Howard saying he's morally opposed to the death penalty at other times, and supporting it here, is direct hypocrisy and therefore amusing.

From a libertarian individual rights type philosophical perspective on the two issues, THE TWO VIEWS ARE NOT CONTRADICTORY. And smug "A-HA, GOTCHA" type smartassery claiming otherwise is a pet peeve of mine.

I'd prefer to watch him die by a guillotine. His head could be used as a trophy for Bush's next presidential election campaign. I think that'd kick ***. *** knows I'd vote for him.

He's getting off easy, the bastard should rot.

While I am liberal-minded guy, I have no problem with Saddam Hussein dieing. I just wish that it was at the hands of the Iraqi people, you know, the way a goverment usually is overturned by the people, rather than the government being overturned by another country. I've never been in a situation to witness first hand, but I'd guess that when an oppressed nation rises up over their tyrannical leader, it's a pretty glorious day. When the people march their former totalitarian dictator into the public square and hang him in front of the whole country.

It just seems kinda gay, that's all. I mean, a guy like Saddam Hussein, getting "dethroned" by a ridiculously more powerful military, and now we put a government into to place that has decided to execute him... It just seems like it would be better if the Iraqi people did it themselves, you know, because then you probably wouldn't have as much insurgency goin' round.

Furthermore, BJ, abortion has NO relationship to the death penalty (although I have no problem with the death penalty). One of them is a punishment for a person's wrong doings, whereas abortion is oftentimes in the best interest of all the involved parties, including the unborn child. If two people are irresponsible and have unprotected sex and get pregnant while they're still in high school, but decide to keep the baby anyway... Well, I know of many situations like that in real life, and the child never has a happy life because its parents aren't prepared for parenthood yet. I know that if you're not ready for parenthood, you shouldn't be having unprotected sex. But it happens. So what do you when it happens? Raise the child with a miserable life? Deprive it of the opportunities that are presented by being raised in a proper family? Essentially, when someone says that a baby ought to be kept, even though the parents weren't ready, the baby is the victim. Because the parents are going to be miserable now, with this kid in their life, but it's their fault because of a decision that they made. But the baby is gonna be miserable, and s/he hasn't made any bad decisions.

Having said that, I do feel that we are too leanient about abortions. While I do think they should be available, I also think they should not be as accesible as they are because then people develop an internal liscense to be irresponsible, knowing that even if it should happen, there's an alternative. I mean, I was raised to believe it was a rather shameful thing to have to do, and it seems to become more and more accepted everyday.

Hey, not quite on topic, but kinda... You know how Iraq is a terribly unsafe place to be right now? You know how the residents there can't ever be certain when the gunfire is gonna go off again, or when some stupid extremist is gonna blow something up? Do you suppose it was that awful to live there when Saddam Hussein was in power? Or do you suppose that no one could get away with blowing stuff up, except him? Maybe that's why they weren't already a democracy. Because when you take this specific group of people and give them freedom, many of them will abuse it. I'd bet that Saddam knew this and that's probably why he was so ironfisted with them.

Abortions should be banned unless the mother's life is in danger, or it wasn't their fault. (Irresponsibility is your fault, face it). It's basically murder.

Just like the case where a woman shot herself in order to kill her baby who was due to be born on that day. Murder charges were dropped, apparently it was an 'abortion'. It's a complete ****ing baby, how the hell can that not be murder? Just put it up for adoption. I'd ratehr be adopted than dead.

Anyway, his execution isn't in line with (almost) basically every other sentence for war crimes/crimes agaisnt humanity. Which the US accepted without protest. Now, they're banging on about how they should kill Saddam. Double standards? Or is it just because they want to exploit someone's death because they think it would give them bigger election chances?

What do you mean in the case when it wasnt their fault? Such as what? Rape?

HEY IDIOT, WE ALREADY DISCUSSED THAT, AND YOU WERE WRONG AS USUAL. [url=http://www.vgchat.com/showthread.php?t=15018]LOOK[/url]

Sweet Mary. You take stupidity to another level. If you get any dumber we can start calling you 'special'.
To make it easy enough for your clearly lesser brain capacity to compute this, I was replying to Hig's post on abortion. Not rape blame.
If you struggle to understand that I suggest asking your carer for help.
If that fails insert a corkscrew into your neck. As soon as your body loses enough blood and you become weak you'll improve the earth!

This is one of those "sigh and shake my head moments", directed at Bebop.

I really don't see how putting Saddam to death is necessary. He's not going to be able to do much in prison... plus, this goes against every Biblic code that President Bush says he abides by.

Because I dont beleive in abortion? Whatever you say, KILLER!

[quote=Bebop]Because I dont beleive in abortion? Whatever you say, KILLER!

What? I didn't say anything about abor...

Never mind. Have a cookie. :)

See post 48. If you still have trouble figuring out where you went wrong I recommend two things.

1> Jump off a bridge
2> Jump off a bridge

THANK G[COLOR=WHITE]O[/COLOR]D FOR ABORTIONS

thank *** for civilian casualties!

There is no implied arguement. Bebop doesn't think women are automatically to blame for rape.

I do admit Im wrong when I am wrong.

Dont confuse being awesome with arrogance.

You're being arrogant right there.

No Im not. Arrogant would be not admitting your worng when your wrong. Im not admitting Im wrong when Im not wrong*. See the differnce?

*[spoiler]See what I did there? I used 'your' referring to you in the example of arrogance because Im not. And I used 'I' referring to myself in the statement about being correct. I thought it was rather clever. Im going to reward myself with a chocolate digestive.[/spoiler]

You are short a few chromosomes.

Ha ha you're an idiot. Thankfully incest means your life span is shorter than mine.

You ought to be castrated. People with such an utter lack of intellect, such as yourself, needn't procreate. If you in any way are an accurate representation of the average denizen of the United Kingdom, then it's clear we have quite the surplus!

[spoiler]by saying "denizen", i implied that you're subhuman! tee-hee[/spoiler]

Basically this is going nowhere. Its the same case of you saying something retarded and me outdoing you. Youve already made an idiot of yourself in this thread so I kind of feel like Im beating a dead horse. I question whether its morally right to mock someone as defected as you. Its over. Misoxeney is finished.

Wasn't that a joke though?

Learn to tell teh difference between something serious and not serious. IT WAS A JOKE. No need to get so arsed over it.

[quote]yet you can barely form coherent statements (it's "don't", btw)

Ha ha oh wow. Im sorry my posts are too incoherent for you.

WAIT I MEAN "I'M"! "I'M"!!!!!!