kallend 1,647 #26 December 27, 2006 QuoteQuoteFair... points.. (wasn't my finger either, but our leaders are as guilty as him, in their own way - they are responsible for the deaths of innocents - a large number of them too) But back to my earlier rant.. I dont support capital punishment. It's not that I'm religious but our (and probably your) laws are based upon Christian values (as good a code as any) and thus one of His biggies... 'Thou shall NOT kill'. No caveats, no ifs, no buts, no, well if someone is naughty, may we can kill them a little bit - THOU SHALL NOT KILL (full stop/period) Actually, the proper translation is "murder" and not "kill". Thou shall not commit murder. The Bible is filled with cases of God tossing out appeals and giving the go-ahead for capital punishment. God himself carried out mass executions by destroying entire cities and civilizations. Of course, he didn't hang 'em all (rope was a valuable commodity back then)....he used fires and floods. No, I'm not a Bible thumper, just some stuff I remember from Sunday school. I also feel the death penalty should only be used in extreme cases, and this is one of those cases. I'm quite happy with the idea letting God bump off Saddam Hussein rather than having a human do it. Let's wait for a spontaneous fire or flood to get him.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #27 December 27, 2006 Fair... points.. (wasn't my finger either, but our leaders are as guilty as him, in their own way - they are responsible for the deaths of innocents - a large number of them too) Quote There's a bit of a difference in sending chemical weapons on a town full of civilians and attacking targets with military value that have civilians nearby, one is intentional, the other is not.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shropshire 0 #28 December 27, 2006 I never went to Sunday school so I'll take your word for it.... But it's a bit like most other stuff, they never seem to say exactly what they mean - if they meant murder why not say murder. Or do these churchified folk like to be deliberately ambiguous so they can win arguments by changing the definition of stuff? So, what was the definition of murder back in the day? (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shropshire 0 #29 December 27, 2006 I'm sure the dead folks families will agree with you on that one. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #30 December 27, 2006 It's an Iraqi court with Iraqi laws. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites willard 0 #31 December 27, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteFair... points.. (wasn't my finger either, but our leaders are as guilty as him, in their own way - they are responsible for the deaths of innocents - a large number of them too) But back to my earlier rant.. I dont support capital punishment. It's not that I'm religious but our (and probably your) laws are based upon Christian values (as good a code as any) and thus one of His biggies... 'Thou shall NOT kill'. No caveats, no ifs, no buts, no, well if someone is naughty, may we can kill them a little bit - THOU SHALL NOT KILL (full stop/period) Actually, the proper translation is "murder" and not "kill". Thou shall not commit murder. The Bible is filled with cases of God tossing out appeals and giving the go-ahead for capital punishment. God himself carried out mass executions by destroying entire cities and civilizations. Of course, he didn't hang 'em all (rope was a valuable commodity back then)....he used fires and floods. No, I'm not a Bible thumper, just some stuff I remember from Sunday school. I also feel the death penalty should only be used in extreme cases, and this is one of those cases. I'm quite happy with the idea letting God bump off Saddam Hussein rather than having a human do it. Let's wait for a spontaneous fire or flood to get him. In all fairness to the victims of Saddam's regime he should be punished in accordance with Islamic law, the predominant religion in that region and to which Saddam subscribes. It matters not what my beliefs are, only the beliefs of the society upon which he was found guilty of these atrocities, a society he is a member of and is to be held accountable to for his actions. If it were up to me he would be hanged today. But it's not my call. (Kallend! I checked out you web site...I used to have an R/C Cub just like that, only mine had a .65 for power. I did love flying that thing, especially off water.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shropshire 0 #32 December 27, 2006 With no external influence what-so-ever ...... I'm sure (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites willard 0 #33 December 27, 2006 QuoteWith no external influence what-so-ever ...... I'm sure None at all Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shropshire 0 #34 December 27, 2006 Just as I thought (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Casurf1978 0 #35 December 27, 2006 I thought the use of chemical weapons was outlawed by international law, yet we still turned a blind eye when Saddam used them throughout the war with Iran. You cannot hold Saddam 100% responsible. We helped him and really didn't give a crap what he did with those weapons. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites willard 0 #36 December 27, 2006 QuoteI never went to Sunday school so I'll take your word for it.... But it's a bit like most other stuff, they never seem to say exactly what they mean - if they meant murder why not say murder. Or do these churchified folk like to be deliberately ambiguous so they can win arguments by changing the definition of stuff? So, what was the definition of murder back in the day? You pretty much hit the nail right on the head. For many centuries only the leaders of the church were allowed access to the Bible. Unless you were one of the few you had no choice but to believe what they told you was written in the Bible and follow their laws. Christianity was not a very nice religion in those days, putting to death any who questioned the leadership. For much of their rule the common man was totally illiterate, even to the point that most had no idea what century they were living in, let alone what year. So, yes, the church was "deliberately ambiguous so they can win arguments by changing the definition of stuff." It was a power that the church had no qualms in taking full advantage of. "So, what was the definition of murder back in the day?" What we consider to be "murder" today is pretty much the same as what it was back then. The actual word used to convey the meaning may have changed, but the context is the same. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #37 December 27, 2006 QuoteQuoteWith no external influence what-so-ever ...... I'm sure None at all Do you guys think that they would need external influence to want to execute Saddam? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shropshire 0 #38 December 27, 2006 No (a lot of people are killed over there for far less)... but they need to impress their new masters. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #39 December 28, 2006 QuoteI dont support capital punishment. It's not that I'm religious but our (and probably your) laws are based upon Christian values (as good a code as any) and thus one of His biggies... 'Thou shall NOT kill'. No caveats, no ifs, no buts, no, well if someone is naughty, may we can kill them a little bit - THOU SHALL NOT KILL (full stop/period) Yet the Bible is full of killings in the name of justice or religion. Why do you oppose the dealth penalty? I support it based on the old school "eye for an eye". I don't think that a cold blooded killer should be ever set free. I don't think they can be rehabilitated and I really do not see the problem with putting them to death. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NelKel 0 #40 December 28, 2006 I hope they hang him from the neck until dead, dead, dead. I hope all the Muslim bigots take to the streets with a big bullseye in them in protest so that our predator drones can lock a target on them and fire. Anyone one who is a sempathizer of hussan is an enemy of the state of america, and should be dealt with swift and merciless._________________________________________ Someone dies, someone says how stupid, someone says it was avoidable, someone says how to avoid it, someone calls them an idiot, someone proposes rule chan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shropshire 0 #41 December 28, 2006 I agree a cold blooded killer should never be set free but killing (even state sponsored - which is always cold blooded killing) is still morally wrong to me. . (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shropshire 0 #42 December 28, 2006 You are either with us of against us? - Bollocks (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #43 December 28, 2006 Thats interesting dear...When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #44 December 28, 2006 QuoteNo (a lot of people are killed over there for far less)... but they need to impress their new masters. my point is that they don't need to "impress their new masters" These guys have it in for Saddam big time, and even if we weren't around they would have wanted to string him up anyway. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shropshire 0 #45 December 28, 2006 I'm sure that you're right. It's a bit of a side note for this thread, but the only way that they have not got their hands on him is through the destruction of a once advanced country and slaughter of countless innocents.... Now that is the real shame IMHO. History will not be recording this chapter of our history as a glowing heroic saga. . (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zipp0 1 #46 December 28, 2006 Quote I support it based on the old school "eye for an eye". . That is the Old Testament that Jesus came to revies. Jesus taught "turn the other cheek." True Christians would never have advocated invading Iraq or even Afghanistan. True Christians would seek a dialog with them, and offer to clothe and feed the poor of the middle East and Africa. There are a lot of born again Christians, but almost none who truly follow the teachings of Christ. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #47 December 29, 2006 OK, so as its Eid tomorrow, I'm bringing my estimation forwards. I think he will hang tonight at 2330 Hrs Iraqi time.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #48 December 29, 2006 QuoteThat is the Old Testament that Jesus came to revies. Jesus taught "turn the other cheek." Coke vs new Coke. God said 'eye for an eye', then comes Jesus saying 'well now just turn the other cheek'. So God was wrong? An Amendment to the Bible? QuoteTrue Christians would never have advocated invading Iraq or even Afghanistan. True Christians would seek a dialog with them, and offer to clothe and feed the poor of the middle East and Africa. Three things about True Christains for ya: 1. Inquisition 2. Crusaides 3. Witch Trials Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mikkey 0 #49 December 29, 2006 From the news: Quote"He was in very high spirits and clearly readying himself," Badie Aref, another defence lawyer, said after Saddam met half-brothers Watban and Sabawi, who are also both held at Camp Cropper, near Baghdad Airport. "He told them he was happy he would meet his death at the hands of his enemies and be a martyr, not just languish in jail. He . . . gave them letters to his family in anticipation." --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites masterrig 1 #50 December 29, 2006 QuoteNo (a lot of people are killed over there for far less)... but they need to impress their new masters. ____________________________________ I'm a bit curious, as to the end result after Sadam's hanging. Was our 9/11 and other incidences of terrorism just the beginning of world terrorism? This could get real interesting. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
shropshire 0 #28 December 27, 2006 I never went to Sunday school so I'll take your word for it.... But it's a bit like most other stuff, they never seem to say exactly what they mean - if they meant murder why not say murder. Or do these churchified folk like to be deliberately ambiguous so they can win arguments by changing the definition of stuff? So, what was the definition of murder back in the day? (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #29 December 27, 2006 I'm sure the dead folks families will agree with you on that one. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #30 December 27, 2006 It's an Iraqi court with Iraqi laws. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #31 December 27, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteFair... points.. (wasn't my finger either, but our leaders are as guilty as him, in their own way - they are responsible for the deaths of innocents - a large number of them too) But back to my earlier rant.. I dont support capital punishment. It's not that I'm religious but our (and probably your) laws are based upon Christian values (as good a code as any) and thus one of His biggies... 'Thou shall NOT kill'. No caveats, no ifs, no buts, no, well if someone is naughty, may we can kill them a little bit - THOU SHALL NOT KILL (full stop/period) Actually, the proper translation is "murder" and not "kill". Thou shall not commit murder. The Bible is filled with cases of God tossing out appeals and giving the go-ahead for capital punishment. God himself carried out mass executions by destroying entire cities and civilizations. Of course, he didn't hang 'em all (rope was a valuable commodity back then)....he used fires and floods. No, I'm not a Bible thumper, just some stuff I remember from Sunday school. I also feel the death penalty should only be used in extreme cases, and this is one of those cases. I'm quite happy with the idea letting God bump off Saddam Hussein rather than having a human do it. Let's wait for a spontaneous fire or flood to get him. In all fairness to the victims of Saddam's regime he should be punished in accordance with Islamic law, the predominant religion in that region and to which Saddam subscribes. It matters not what my beliefs are, only the beliefs of the society upon which he was found guilty of these atrocities, a society he is a member of and is to be held accountable to for his actions. If it were up to me he would be hanged today. But it's not my call. (Kallend! I checked out you web site...I used to have an R/C Cub just like that, only mine had a .65 for power. I did love flying that thing, especially off water.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #32 December 27, 2006 With no external influence what-so-ever ...... I'm sure (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #33 December 27, 2006 QuoteWith no external influence what-so-ever ...... I'm sure None at all Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #34 December 27, 2006 Just as I thought (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #35 December 27, 2006 I thought the use of chemical weapons was outlawed by international law, yet we still turned a blind eye when Saddam used them throughout the war with Iran. You cannot hold Saddam 100% responsible. We helped him and really didn't give a crap what he did with those weapons. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #36 December 27, 2006 QuoteI never went to Sunday school so I'll take your word for it.... But it's a bit like most other stuff, they never seem to say exactly what they mean - if they meant murder why not say murder. Or do these churchified folk like to be deliberately ambiguous so they can win arguments by changing the definition of stuff? So, what was the definition of murder back in the day? You pretty much hit the nail right on the head. For many centuries only the leaders of the church were allowed access to the Bible. Unless you were one of the few you had no choice but to believe what they told you was written in the Bible and follow their laws. Christianity was not a very nice religion in those days, putting to death any who questioned the leadership. For much of their rule the common man was totally illiterate, even to the point that most had no idea what century they were living in, let alone what year. So, yes, the church was "deliberately ambiguous so they can win arguments by changing the definition of stuff." It was a power that the church had no qualms in taking full advantage of. "So, what was the definition of murder back in the day?" What we consider to be "murder" today is pretty much the same as what it was back then. The actual word used to convey the meaning may have changed, but the context is the same. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #37 December 27, 2006 QuoteQuoteWith no external influence what-so-ever ...... I'm sure None at all Do you guys think that they would need external influence to want to execute Saddam? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #38 December 27, 2006 No (a lot of people are killed over there for far less)... but they need to impress their new masters. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #39 December 28, 2006 QuoteI dont support capital punishment. It's not that I'm religious but our (and probably your) laws are based upon Christian values (as good a code as any) and thus one of His biggies... 'Thou shall NOT kill'. No caveats, no ifs, no buts, no, well if someone is naughty, may we can kill them a little bit - THOU SHALL NOT KILL (full stop/period) Yet the Bible is full of killings in the name of justice or religion. Why do you oppose the dealth penalty? I support it based on the old school "eye for an eye". I don't think that a cold blooded killer should be ever set free. I don't think they can be rehabilitated and I really do not see the problem with putting them to death. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NelKel 0 #40 December 28, 2006 I hope they hang him from the neck until dead, dead, dead. I hope all the Muslim bigots take to the streets with a big bullseye in them in protest so that our predator drones can lock a target on them and fire. Anyone one who is a sempathizer of hussan is an enemy of the state of america, and should be dealt with swift and merciless._________________________________________ Someone dies, someone says how stupid, someone says it was avoidable, someone says how to avoid it, someone calls them an idiot, someone proposes rule chan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #41 December 28, 2006 I agree a cold blooded killer should never be set free but killing (even state sponsored - which is always cold blooded killing) is still morally wrong to me. . (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #42 December 28, 2006 You are either with us of against us? - Bollocks (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #43 December 28, 2006 Thats interesting dear...When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #44 December 28, 2006 QuoteNo (a lot of people are killed over there for far less)... but they need to impress their new masters. my point is that they don't need to "impress their new masters" These guys have it in for Saddam big time, and even if we weren't around they would have wanted to string him up anyway. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #45 December 28, 2006 I'm sure that you're right. It's a bit of a side note for this thread, but the only way that they have not got their hands on him is through the destruction of a once advanced country and slaughter of countless innocents.... Now that is the real shame IMHO. History will not be recording this chapter of our history as a glowing heroic saga. . (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #46 December 28, 2006 Quote I support it based on the old school "eye for an eye". . That is the Old Testament that Jesus came to revies. Jesus taught "turn the other cheek." True Christians would never have advocated invading Iraq or even Afghanistan. True Christians would seek a dialog with them, and offer to clothe and feed the poor of the middle East and Africa. There are a lot of born again Christians, but almost none who truly follow the teachings of Christ. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #47 December 29, 2006 OK, so as its Eid tomorrow, I'm bringing my estimation forwards. I think he will hang tonight at 2330 Hrs Iraqi time.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #48 December 29, 2006 QuoteThat is the Old Testament that Jesus came to revies. Jesus taught "turn the other cheek." Coke vs new Coke. God said 'eye for an eye', then comes Jesus saying 'well now just turn the other cheek'. So God was wrong? An Amendment to the Bible? QuoteTrue Christians would never have advocated invading Iraq or even Afghanistan. True Christians would seek a dialog with them, and offer to clothe and feed the poor of the middle East and Africa. Three things about True Christains for ya: 1. Inquisition 2. Crusaides 3. Witch Trials Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #49 December 29, 2006 From the news: Quote"He was in very high spirits and clearly readying himself," Badie Aref, another defence lawyer, said after Saddam met half-brothers Watban and Sabawi, who are also both held at Camp Cropper, near Baghdad Airport. "He told them he was happy he would meet his death at the hands of his enemies and be a martyr, not just languish in jail. He . . . gave them letters to his family in anticipation." --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #50 December 29, 2006 QuoteNo (a lot of people are killed over there for far less)... but they need to impress their new masters. ____________________________________ I'm a bit curious, as to the end result after Sadam's hanging. Was our 9/11 and other incidences of terrorism just the beginning of world terrorism? This could get real interesting. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
