# Saddam has departed



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

According to the BBC, the deed is done.

I have always felt it was a necessity,
it is just a shame it could not have been done by a half dozen cruise missiles while at his country palace thereby leaving the rest of the country intact.

https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6218485.stm


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Idiotic news service hinted at it being carried out at any minute, and of course they would make a special report. Naturally they waited until the final Jeopardy question which I had wagered a beer on. In a few minutes Vanna White was smiling while turning the letter R.


----------



## burnedandfrozen (Mar 11, 2004)

Well, at least he wasn't allowed to sit around for 25 years making one appeal after another. A speedy trial and execution... now there's a novel idea.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Murder is murder, and in my view those who defend it by calling it abortion, preventive invasion or justice are going to share a murderer's reward.


----------



## 18677 (Jan 4, 2006)

*.*



burnedandfrozen said:


> Well, at least he wasn't allowed to sit around for 25 years making one appeal after another. A speedy trial and execution... now there's a novel idea.


Agreed.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Gentlemen*

My friends,

It was last week, he had 30 days to fester, then the deed was to be done.
I wish we were allowed to view this, drink a six pack and enjoy this moment.
Too bad
Nice day


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

An evil presence has departed.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

But when will we put aside political expediancy and use the same measure for all? Noriega was our boy until he stepped out of line and into an american prison. Saddam had our support as a check to Iran. Please don't tell me we didn't know about his kid's hobby of rape, the iraqi jews hung from streetlamps ad nauseum. Is this supposed to send a message to North Korea, like a nazi film of Stukas? What of all the other thugs we do business with?


----------



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

Kav said:


> Idiotic news service.........


Kav, are you referring to the news services in general or the BBC?
I personally find the BBC far more palatable than CNN.
And don't get me started on FOX, it is infotainment, not journalism.


----------



## pcunite (Nov 20, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Murder is murder, and in my view those who defend it by calling it abortion, preventive invasion or justice are going to share a murderer's reward.


Saddam was not murdered. He was stopped.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Murder is murder, and in my view those who defend it by calling it abortion, preventive invasion or justice are going to share a murderer's reward.


Murder is murder, but all killing is not murder. Abortion is; self-defense and justice are not. You need an education.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Gone!*

I do not see this a murder, he was, lets just say put to sleep.
Murder?

Nice day gentlemen


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I guess that Kav has a point. I don't totally agree, but right now I can't put a logical reason together.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Murder is murder, but all killing is not murder. Abortion is; self-defense and justice are not. You need an education.


The souls of 60,000+ Iraqi civilians slaughtered by Bush's invasion will have something to say to you about "self-defense and justice".

I suspect Pope John Paul II had an education that far outstripped any of the participants of this discussion, yet he declared Bush's invasion to be "neither legally nor morally justified". This makes Mr. Bush a mass murderer, and those who supported the invasion accomplices to mass murder.

Try not to wail and gnash your teeth too hard as you're cast into hell.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I was trying to be sarcastic and pulled a Kerry. Globalization, the internet, imbedded journalists have still not brought world reality home. Irwin was killed by a stingray and we paused for a few weeks and marine biologists got to display barb collections. President Ford just passed and Watergate was back with us like old grudges at a High School reunion. And now Saddam has met the end he deserved a thousand times over and it's this anticlimactic burp between Alex and Vanna. I didn't hear cheering outside, or celebratory gunfire. Yes, we removed a bad guy. The political motivations are not some clearcut B movie Hollywood Oater morallity play. Saddam is not the cancer I was concerned with. Somewhere in Pak bandit country the real tumor is still alive while our medical team is in the wrong hospital. Os_m_ May I have an A Pat?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

LOL 

I agree with what I understood.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> The souls of 60,000+ Iraqi civilians slaughtered by Bush's invasion will have something to say to you about "self-defense and justice".
> 
> I suspect Pope John Paul II had an education that far outstripped any of the participants of this discussion, yet he declared Bush's invasion to be "neither legally nor morally justified". This makes Mr. Bush a mass murderer, and those who supported the invasion accomplices to mass murder.
> 
> Try not to wail and gnash your teeth too hard as you're cast into hell.


The Pope is welcome to his opinion, but I don't believe he is the final arbiter on who is going to hell, and neither, certainly, are you.

Saddam worked hard to earn his earthly "reward".


----------



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

Kav,

Understood.

Imbedded journalists was the most successful propaganda campaign launched in recent history. My buddies in Bagdad send me pictures that never see the light of day on this side of the pond.

No one wants to see reality, fantasy sells!



Kav said:


> I was trying to be sarcastic and pulled a Kerry. Globalization, the internet, imbedded journalists have still not brought world reality home. Irwin was killed by a stingray and we paused for a few weeks and marine biologists got to display barb collections. President Ford just passed and Watergate was back with us like old grudges at a High School reunion. And now Saddam has met the end he deserved a thousand times over and it's this anticlimactic burp between Alex and Vanna. I didn't hear cheering outside, or celebratory gunfire. Yes, we removed a bad guy. The political motivations are not some clearcut B movie Hollywood Oater morallity play. Saddam is not the cancer I was concerned with. Somewhere in Pak bandit country the real tumor is still alive while our medical team is in the wrong hospital. Os_m_ May I have an A Pat?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Relayer said:


> The Pope is welcome to his opinion, but I don't believe he is the final arbiter on who is going to hell


Hmmmmm. I guess I'll be seeing you there. Warm there, I hear.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> The souls of 60,000+ Iraqi civilians slaughtered by Bush's invasion will have something to say to you about "self-defense and justice".
> 
> I suspect Pope John Paul II had an education that far outstripped any of the participants of this discussion, yet he declared Bush's invasion to be "neither legally nor morally justified". This makes Mr. Bush a mass murderer, and those who supported the invasion accomplices to mass murder.
> 
> Try not to wail and gnash your teeth too hard as you're cast into hell.


As a proud protestant I really don't care one tiny bit about the Pope or his opinion. I consider him a heretic. And; academic credentials do not an education make.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Relayer said:


> Saddam worked hard to earn his earthly "reward".


Hussein dealt with the same warring factions in his country that are now claiming the lives of America's sons and daughters. His regime killed ~180,000 Iraqi civilians in 25 years. Bush's regime has killed ~60,000 civilians and it's taken them only three years to do it.

Point your fingers of blame wherever you want, and put whatever happy face you want on this mass murder, it doesn't change the reality in Iraq. The same people who believe there's any chance of "winning" there had the exact same delusion 30 years ago about Vietnam. Fundamental ignorance and arrogance.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

So Frank, what do you do for a living? Motivational speaker I'm thinking?

Whether you were for or against the war (I was against), it is hard to see justice being administered to Saddam as a bad thing. I too wish it had been done without the cost of war but at least any rational person can say this was a good thing. I was speaking with a friend in the Detroit area last night, he said many Muslims were partying in the streets last night. Maybe there is some hope.

Cheers.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Capital punishment is never justice and it is never self-defense. It's vindictive barbarism which has (and can have) only one purpose: to appease demonic potential residing inside all people.

How many of you have read the transcripts from Hussein's kangaroo "trial"? You can't, because one wasn't made. The court was financed by the U.S., court procedures were dictated by the U.S. Hussein's lawyer received no documents from the prosecution until less than one month before trial, even though Hussein had been in U.S. custody for TWO YEARS. Etc. And now we have to listen to Bush yammer about what a milestone this was for the Iraqi people. It literally turns my stomach.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> So Frank, what do you do for a living? Motivational speaker I'm thinking?
> 
> Whether you were for or against the war (I was against), it is hard to see justice being administered to Saddam as a bad thing. I too wish it had been done without the cost of war but at least any rational person can say this was a good thing. I was speaking with a friend in the Detroit area last night, he said many Muslims were partying in the streets last night. Maybe there is some hope.
> 
> Cheers.


Yes, AP moved photos of celebrations in Detroit. Which doesn't mean much. If they had been fans of Saddam, they likely wouldn't be here in the first place, they'd have stayed where they were.

But I don't think it's irrational to suggest that capital punishment could be wrong. You can disagree with that stance, but there are rational arguments for both sides.

Anyway, I think it's tacky to celebrate a death. A sense of relief I can understand, but glee is disgusting.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> *Capital punishment is never justice and it is never self-defense. It's vindictive barbarism which has (and can have) only one purpose: to appease demonic potential residing inside all people.*
> 
> How many of you have read the transcripts from Hussein's kangaroo "trial"? You can't, because one wasn't made. The court was financed by the U.S., court procedures were dictated by the U.S. Hussein's lawyer received no documents from the prosecution until less than one month before trial, even though Hussein had been in U.S. custody for TWO YEARS. Etc. And now we have to listen to Bush yammer about what a milestone this was for the Iraqi people. It literally turns my stomach.


You do not believe in capital punishment, but you _do_ believe in hell? Interesting.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

crs said:


> Yes, AP moved photos of celebrations in Detroit. Which doesn't mean much. If they had been fans of Saddam, they likely wouldn't be here in the first place, they'd have stayed where they were.
> 
> But I don't think it's irrational to suggest that capital punishment could be wrong. You can disagree with that stance, but there are rational arguments for both sides.
> 
> *Anyway, I think it's tacky to celebrate a death. A sense of relief I can understand, but glee is disgusting*.


I agree crs. I do not celebrate a man's death. Fellow Christians, lest we forget, Saddam was also created by God, and if you believe the Bible is true, his sins are no worse than ours. *All *have sinned and fall short, remember that verse? 
The death penalty is a difficult issue for me, as is abortion. I am just thankful that I have not had to make a decision on either one.


----------



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

FrankDC wrote:

Bush's regime has killed ~60,000 civilians and it's taken them only three years to do it.


~~~~

That is factually wrong!
You can bounce numbers and theories to achieve your desired goal all you wish, but that statement is wrong.
Attribute the death count accurately is you are going to quote it.

I was for the removal of Saddam,
but against the war as the vehicle to do so. 

If you call Saddam's death sentence "murder and barbaric", 
I suppose stopping Hitler was equally barbaric?


----------



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

crs said:


> ....Anyway, I think it's tacky to celebrate a death. A sense of relief I can understand, but glee is disgusting.


One can only hope that with time, peace will settle in and people can get on with their lives, feed and educate their children properly and sleep without the fears they have endured for so many years. Not just in Iraq, but the entire region.
Hate has ruled for far too long.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

zegnamtl said:


> FrankDC wrote:
> 
> Bush's regime has killed ~60,000 civilians and it's taken them only three years to do it.
> 
> ...


Bush himself claimed the number of Iraqi civilian casualties at "over 30,000" some months ago, while documented estimates approach or exceed 60,000. Both these numbers are likely gross underestimates, since only a minority of civilian casualties in any invasion make it as far as media coverage.

What do you think the number is?

As for Hitler, the comparison is apples and oranges. Germany was in a declared war with the U.S. Iraq was not.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

Gee I go away for a few days and all hell breaks lose. And now I learn that Ksinc considers the Pope a heretic (would love to hear the tortured logic and dubious theology behind that one.) The year is certainly ending with a bang.

Karl


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

This is too good to stay out of!

That Ksinc considers the Pope a heretic -- I agree along with a lot of other denominations. And the Pope has no decision if you choose to go to Heaven or Hell, and only you can choose. Why the Pope is a heretic? Jesus said you are your own preist and Jesus is you High preist, Jesus never mentioned any other preist between you and Jesus. Jesus also said to call no man your Father (Spiritual) nor Priest. So those who believe the Pope will be going to Hell. 

FrankDC -- you ever read the Bible? Old Testament? New Testament? Show me where Jesus disagrees with capital punishment. If Jesus is God and The Same Yesterday, Today and Forever- then capital punishment is a government responsibilty.

FrankDC -- If those that are doing the needless killings in Iraq didn't kill anybody then Iraq would be a peaceful and blood free land. But evil people want what is not theirs to the point of death- their choice like Hitler. You judge in one way which continues rape, stealings, murder of the innocence- how can you sleep at night?

There is nothing wrong with celebrating the end of evil when somebody gets their justice. The sad part is that somebody choose to be evil (you can read this in the Old Testament, too).

Last and not least- Those of you that supported me in another thread- thank you!


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

ksinc, If the Pope is a heretic, why is protestantism's history based on Luther and skips the single church before the great schism? Orthodox can present pretty strong positions your all out of step with the one, apostolic church of Jesus. Then again, one could find commonality instead and build on that rather than Protestant/Catholic, Sunni/Shi'ite, anti semitism by everybody war and brutality. IN TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD Atticus fights for justice for an innocent *****. Atticus also dispatches a rabid dog with a .30-40 Krag and thanks Boo Radley for saving his children by committing a homicide. These are subjects of import and debate, best discussed doing something usefull with tangible outcomes, like shining AEs or pressing shirts.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

WA said:


> This is too good to stay out of!
> 
> That Ksinc considers the Pope a heretic -- I agree along with a lot of other denominations. And the Pope has no decision if you choose to go to Heaven or Hell, and only you can choose. Why the Pope is a heretic? Jesus said you are your own preist and Jesus is you High preist, Jesus never mentioned any other preist between you and Jesus. Jesus also said to call no man your Father (Spiritual) nor Priest. So those who believe the Pope will be going to Hell.


I certainly hope that you are joking...

****WARNING*** Another Gabba Goul double standard rant is fast approaching*

Why is it okay in this day and age to say such things about the Catholics??? seriously a person can get away with saying more heinous things in public about Catholics than they could about Muslims...If I as a Catholic layed down an unkind opinion about Protestants, or Jews, or Hindus, or whomever, I'd be called intolerant. Yet taking shots at the Pope, *MY* spiritual leader is hunkie-dorie...BULL S***...I dont even find that funny...As the supreme pontiff, the pope is basically entrusted with the responsibility of running the entire Catholic church worldwide...he makes decisions by which we as Catholics are to try our best to abide by (though I am no saint, so I'll spare everybody the hypocricy of a diatribe on _virtuous living_ etc)...never the less he holds a seat that was once held by St. Peter, there is alot of heritage to be upheld there, granted that in the past there have been some less than savory popes, in this day and age, the responsibility is not entrusted to just any old Joe...I find it absolutely acenine that disparaging remarks against the man would even be tolerated when we all know good and well that one could not lambaste any other leaders of mainstream religions in such a way...I mean, if I called Martin Luther an @$$hole and said that if you believe in his teachings then you're surely going to hell, I'm sure you'd take issue...but I'm a bit more tolerant than that...JPII was a great human being, and may very well someday be regarded as a saint...to say that a person is going to hell for following him has to make the top 10 list for most retarded quotes of 2006...

anyway, I've said my piece, and as far as I'm concerned anybody who tells me I'm going to hell for following the pope can kiss my Catholic @$$...

*[/rant]*

anyway...re: Saddam I'm glad to see him gone, although I always find it creepy when the masses cheer an execution as though their favorite team just won the superbowl...it's just a matter of justice being carried out; I think it was necessary that it had to be done, and the world is a better place without him. At any rate, lets just hope that this represented the begining of the solution to this whole mess in the middle east...


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

WA said:


> And the Pope has no decision if you choose to go to Heaven or Hell, and only you can choose.


My sources say you are only half-right. Apparently you are correct that the Pope does not decide who goes to heaven or hell. But at the Pearly Gates, they give you a spelling test and those who fail go to hell.


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

_This_ is why I never come to the Interchange. I think I'll stay away for good.


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

Kav said:


> ksinc, If the Pope is a heretic, why is protestantism's history based on Luther and skips the single church before the great schism? Orthodox can present pretty strong positions your all out of step with the one, apostolic church of Jesus. Then again, one could find commonality instead and build on that rather than Protestant/Catholic, Sunni/Shi'ite, anti semitism by everybody war and brutality. IN TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD Atticus fights for justice for an innocent *****. Atticus also dispatches a rabid dog with a .30-40 Krag and thanks Boo Radley for saving his children by committing a homicide. These are subjects of import and debate, best discussed doing something usefull with tangible outcomes, like shining AEs or pressing shirts.


A clarification: the Orthodox church, despite its name, is far more tolerant of differences of opinion/culture/interpretation than is the Catholic church. If you study your Christian history (as I have), you'll understand that this is one of the reasons for their allowing the Bishop of Rome to assume the powers he did prior to the Great Schism (and all the other schisms -- there really wasn't only one) that he did.

I'm Protestant, so I have no real bone in this one.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> If I as a Catholic layed down an unkind opinion about Protestants, or Jews, or Hindus, or whomever, I'd be called intolerant.


 Or far worse. E.g. any kind of criticism of Israel is a one-way ticket to anti-Semiteville, and permanent banishment on many discussion forums in the U.S. I suspect this one as well.



The Gabba Goul said:


> anyway...re: Saddam I'm glad to see him gone, although I always find it creepy when the masses cheer an execution as though their favorite team just won the superbowl...it's just a matter of justice being carried out; I think it was necessary that it had to be done, and the world is a better place without him. At any rate, lets just hope that this represented the begining of the solution to this whole mess in the middle east...


Unfortunately the reality is, Hussein was the most secular leader Iraq ever had, and whoever/whatever replaces him will eventually turn the government into just another repressive, theocratic Middle East shithole similar to Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia etc. The lives of 3,000 American kids and $700 billion (and counting) flushed directly down the toilet for nothing.

The only alternative that has a chance of working is a partitioning of Iraq, but (par for the course) Bush is dead set against the idea.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

WA,

If ignorance is bliss you must be in a state of constant ecstacy.

After your last statement I am almost ashamed that we have occassionally agreed on other issues in the past. Your ignorance concerning Catholicism is seemingly boundless but just for the record Catholic doctrine does not say that the Pope determines the eternal fate of a person. One wonders where you picked up that theological chesnut. Nor is there doctrine of the elect within the Catholic Church. John Calvin is one of your guys, not ours. 

But just for the record let us know what other valuable insights you have on the Catholic Church. Something tells me there is a greater than zero percent chance you subscribe to some sort of Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, etc. conspiracy as well. Meanwhile to my fellow Papists, I will await further instructions from Rome and will send your their reply in the usual coded format.

Karl


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Or far worse. E.g. any kind of criticism of Israel is a one-way ticket to anti-Semiteville, and permanent banishment on many discussion forums in the U.S. I suspect this one as well.


I dunno...I mean, I dont like to look at it in those terms, I think that people regardless of color religion etc fall into two categories, good people, and jagoffs...I like the good people regardless of whatever their situation may be, the jagoffs...well, I have no use for them...



> Unfortunately the reality is, Hussein was the most secular leader Iraq ever had, and whoever/whatever replaces him will eventually turn the government into just another repressive, theocratic Middle East shithole similar to Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia etc. The lives of 3,000 American kids and $700 billion (and counting) flushed directly down the toilet for nothing.
> 
> The only alternative that has a chance of working is a partitioning of Iraq, but (par for the course) Bush is dead set against the idea.


I think the situation is such a mess it isnt even funny, though I dont blame GW Bush for it, I mean, he is just one man, a man whom was fed bad info at that, I was never really super wild about the idea of this war, but I think that hopefully, we will have done some good by the time that all is said and done.

I personally am a huge suporter of GW (you think were in bad shape now? just wait until 2009 when the Hillary or Obama administrartion takes the reigns), and I think it's unfair when people lay the fact that this thing has gone haywire squarely on his shoulders...there are many things that have factored into it, and hopefully, sooner rather than later, a good solution will be thought up in order to end this thing...


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> WA,
> 
> If ignorance is bliss you must be in a state of constant ecstacy.


Word!!!



Laxplayer said:


> I do not celebrate a man's death. Fellow Christians, lest we forget, Saddam was also created by God, and if you believe the Bible is true, his sins are no worse than ours.


Oh my goodness...actually referenceing the bible for something constructive...what a novel concept...



Laxplayer said:


> *All *have sinned and fall short, remember that verse?


Well...except for WA...



Laxplayer said:


> The death penalty is a difficult issue for me, as is abortion. I am just thankful that I have not had to make a decision on either one.


You sir are the most sensible poster on this thread...


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*regret*

As an atheist I do not believe in hell, nor in any sort of afterlife. So, when someone dies, that's it. They are gone. In my view this makes life especially prescious. I understand faith as something that cannot be disproved, so I usually do not try to talk people out of their religious beliefs.

I do not believe the state should kill people, either one at a time by execution, or in large numbers through military action. I certainly respect, even admire individuals who serve in the military and am on good terms with Duke Grad and others on the forum who differ with me on this subject.

I recognize that my views are minority ones, and quite idealistic. I don't expect an end to war in my lifetime, or for a long time after I'm dead, but I hope we can stop executing people.

I truely wish we had not executed Saddam, even if he'd actually had a real trial rather than a show trial.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

The Gabba Goul said:


> You sir are the most sensible poster on this thread...


It seems you have failed to see post #36.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Teacher said:


> It seems you have failed to see post #36.


:biggrin2: Indeed...

we'll call it a tie...and as a side note...dont let the occasional knucklehead keep you from posting in the interchange...I think I speak for most here when I say that the coments of the objective and the level headed are always a welcome breath of fresh air...


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Gurdon said:


> As an atheist I do not believe in hell, nor in any sort of afterlife. So, when someone dies, that's it. They are gone. In my view this makes life especially prescious. I understand faith as something that cannot be disproved, so I usually do not try to talk people out of their religious beliefs.
> 
> I do not believe the state should kill people, either one at a time by execution, or in large numbers through military action. I certainly respect, even admire individuals who serve in the military and am on good terms with Duke Grad and others on the forum who differ with me on this subject.
> 
> ...


From what Jesus is quoted as saying, God has far more respect for self-righteous atheists than hypocritical theists. One thing is certain: he reserved his most vehement condemnation for those in that latter category.

As for the different flavors of Christianity, I've become so jaded over the years, the instant someone identifies himself as "Christian" about a dozen red flags go up in my head, almost without regard to denomination. In my experience most have been as utterly disconnected from the messages of Jesus' teachings as the Jews were from their religion in Jesus' day. I believe our current president is the very embodiment of this disconnect. Hypocrisy personified: Love thy enemy, and put him to death. Thou shalt not kill, except for mentally retarded criminals. Feed the poor, and take away their legal rights when they're maimed or killed.

A month after 911 he told the American people to get on with their lives, and ever since has been making a political career out of fear and terror. Look up any one of his speeches. The man can't speak two paragraphs without instilling fear and terror in the American people.

Bush has a trail of blood leading all the way back to his boyhood, when his idea of fun was shoving firecrackers down the throats of small animals and watching them explode. Now he's doing the same thing to our kids.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Gentlemen*

My friends,

I was having pizza last night with my wife, and family The hanging was on the news, and they did not show all of it!!!!
Did anyone one see the whole hanging?
Can someone recommend a site that has the ending, the complete hanging?
Nice day


----------



## Foghorn (Feb 2, 2005)

*This unfortunately came from Fox News & is of rather poor quality*

DukeGrad,
Appears to be the only one available:
https://one.revver.com/watch/130549
Go Navy,
Foghorn


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Saddam Hussein was nothing more than a thug and a common criminal, with a substantial dose of mass murder thrown in on the side to make things a bit more complex. It is appropriate that he should have been executed, by hanging, as a common criminal. It would be interesting to see if the opinions expressed by some of the more extreme "bleeding heats" if a few earlier posts would be any different if it were their family members or neighbors who had been victims of this "average sinners" past atrocities. It is indeed good that this criminal has been brought to justice!


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

eagle2250 said:


> Saddam Hussein was nothing more than a thug and a common criminal, with a substantial dose of mass murder thrown in on the side to make things a bit more complex. It is appropriate that he should have been executed, by hanging, as a common criminal. It would be interesting to see if the opinions expressed by some of the more extreme "bleeding heats" if a few earlier posts would be any different if it were their family members or neighbors who had been victims of this "average sinners" past atrocities. It is indeed good that this criminal has been brought to justice!


Yeah, he was brought to justice. But enjoying that, and wanting to gather the family and pop some popcorn and watch it -- well, that's just subhuman.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Anyway, I think it's tacky to celebrate a death. A sense of relief I can understand, but glee is disgusting.


Hey, no one said they were Martha Stewart fans.

I think crs you are doing what liberals tell us we should not do. You are applying your cultural standards to the celebrants. While I too find it alien to have a street party over an execution, it does seem to be totally acceptable in many Muslim cultures, to wit, the dancing in the streets over 9/11 too.

I think you are attempting to have your cake and eat it too, as I remember a very lengthy conversation with you once where you refused to deny you are a cultural relativist and refused to disavow it. Please do not think I am WA, I *can* take the time to go find that thread, I *do* have evidence for this statement. So as a good cultural relativist, you have no right to make such a judgmental statement. It is acceptable in their culture and by making a judgmental statement like that, you have joined the ranks of Rush Limbaugh IMO.

Happy New Years


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Foghorn!*

Shipmate!

Thank you very much, just got back from Mass. With family.
Thank you, great hanging my friend.
Very nice my friend


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I must say I'm disappointed. I would have thought We'all Jeer at Ya would jump on this story with better production qualities than a cellphone. CRS's journalist peers certainly had no hesitancy broadcasting americans being dragged through Mogadishu, the towers falling or contracters hanging from a bridge in Baghdad.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

I claim no kinship with the TV people, none at all.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

No fun being lumped with others is it CRS? Somebody has a different writing style, some opinions and you decide they're a LSD soaked remnant of the 60s. Turnaround is fairplay.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

No doubt some of the lawyers here see themselves as a breed apart from the ambulance-chasers. Or, to put it terms more dear to your heart, Kav, no doubt your peyote procurer sees himself in a different category than the street-corner crack dealer. Dig?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Those of us who are full of themselves just find the discussion amazing. 

Party on, dudes.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Just a few thoughts on random issues raised in this thread:

Saddam may have been a brutal, ruthless, bloody-handed dictator, but at least he kept order in that violent, fractious country. There is something to be said for that. On the major issues that most of us dislike about Arab/Muslim countries--religious intolerance and oppression of women--Iraq under Saddam had a better track record than most. I never could quite see the logic, when America was attacked by a bunch of religious crazies from more-or-less friendly Arab states, of attacking and destroying the most secular of Arab states, whose "infidel tyrant" was loathed by the jihadi types...but, then, nobody asked me. Had a stable, tolerant, democratic Iraq emerged out of the ruins of Saddam's despotism as a beacon and exemplar to the rest of the Middle East, I was prepared to admit that Bush and his Neocon buddies were wiser and more visionary men than a crabbed old naysayer like myself. However, if I were a betting man, I'd don't think I'd give good odds on our seeing a "stable, democratic, tolerant Iraq" anytime soon! 

One curious fact is that in Saddam's Iraq civilian firearms ownership was widespread, especially of selective-fire AK-47s. This tends to give the lie to the old NRA argument that guns are "liberty's teeth" to keep the government honest and respectful individual rights. 

However, I have had friends on the "Hard Right" (who loathe the Bush/Neocon right) argue that actually the widespread gun ownership proves that Saddam's regime was not nearly so oppressive as his detractors have portayed it. I don't know!

On the matter of WA calling the Pope "a heretic," I suppose if one believes in objective truth in religion, then he is entirely within his rights. If one takes a conservative Protestant view that the Roman Catholic Chuch represents a deformation and corruption of the religion established by Jesus, then the Pope is indeed a heretic! Conversely, if one is a loyal Roman Catholic and views the Church as the covenanted abode of the Holy Spirit and His Holiness the Pope as the Infallible Vicar of Christ, then the Protestants are indubitably heretics and schismatics at the peril of their souls, and the Orthodox are schismatics and probably heretics these days since they reject the Infallibilist dogma proclaimed by Vatican I. Likewise, many Orthodox theologians regard the Roman Church as heretical because of the dogma of Papal Infallibility as well as the older filioquist controversy.

Going outside the internal divisions of Christianity, if Jews are right in rejecting the Messiahship/Divinity of Jesus, then Christians are wrong and vice-versa. If Mohammed was a true prophet of God, then all who reject his message are wrong. If not, then he was a false prophet. 

Of course, it is possible that nothing like the God of Biblical Revelation exists, and Jews, Christians of all demoninations and Muslims could all be wrong, but they certainly can't all be right if one applies any kind of logical rigor to religious belief. This is a very good reason why gentlemen should probably eschew religious discussions in fora of this type.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Those of us who are full of themselves just find the discussion amazing.
> 
> Party on, dudes.


Kav shouldn't fire the first shot. If he refrains from doing so, he'd never have to worry about any flak from me. That's a promise. Ditto for you.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Try a few Valium and Vodka CRS. One psychotropic experience within the mores of a native and ancient culture, guided by a recognised religous leader while pursuing a graduate degree in anthropology is about as close to criminal drug activity as Goebbels broadcasting the truth vs a vs writing obituaries for the community paper. For a 'journalist' you have no small hubris in wishing to shout down your perceived opponents. There is a word for this, It's called censorship. I've only fired warning shots CRS. This one was right between the zipper.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Kav said:


> Try a few Valium and Vodka CRS. One psychotropic experience within the mores of a native and ancient culture, guided by a recognised religous leader while pursuing a graduate degree in anthropology is about as close to criminal drug activity as Goebbels broadcasting the truth vs a vs writing obituaries for the community paper. For a 'journalist' you have no small hubris in wishing to shout down your perceived opponents. There is a word for this, It's called censorship. I've only fired warning shots CRS. This one was right between the zipper.


You probably were of at least average intelligence before you fried all those brain cells. Damned pity.


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

Kav, crs, quit the posturing now.


----------



## Mr. Golem (Mar 18, 2006)

As far as the video goes, I've only seen one that was taken with a cell phone by an Iraqy who was present. Supposedly the execution will have an official release some time.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

JLibourel said:


> On the matter of WA calling the Pope "a heretic," I suppose if one believes in objective truth in religion, then he is entirely within his rights. If one takes a conservative Protestant view that the Roman Catholic Chuch represents a deformation and corruption of the religion established by Jesus, then the Pope is indeed a heretic! Conversely, if one is a loyal Roman Catholic and views the Church as the covenanted abode of the Holy Spirit and His Holiness the Pope as the Infallible Vicar of Christ, then the Protestants are indubitably heretics and schismatics at the peril of their souls, and the Orthodox are schismatics and probably heretics these days since they reject the Infallibilist dogma proclaimed by Vatican I. Likewise, many Orthodox theologians regard the Roman Church as heretical because of the dogma of Papal Infallibility as well as the older filioquist controversy.


Mr. L,

I certainly question the validity of anyone's viewpoint that had to have this explained, but that was an excellent explanation.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> Saddam Hussein was nothing more than a thug and a common criminal, with a substantial dose of mass murder thrown in on the side to make things a bit more complex. It is appropriate that he should have been executed, by hanging, as a common criminal. It would be interesting to see if the opinions expressed by some of the more extreme "bleeding heats" if a few earlier posts would be any different if it were their family members or neighbors who had been victims of this "average sinners" past atrocities. It is indeed good that this criminal has been brought to justice!


I have thought about the question of vengance a lot, as I am fairly primative in some respects. I am also human, and therefore subject to weakness. I have been asked this question by friends who are somewhat liberal but think some executions are warrented.

My general response to this sort of question is that if I catch a person in the act of harming someone near and dear to me and I have the means at hand I will probably kill that individual. This is based on the likelyhood of emotional overload on my part and the reasonable assumption that that person would try to kill me if he or she could. If the person is already running away I'll call 911. As mad (in the literal sense) as I might be at the time, I will not place myself in jeapordy of prosecution by killing someone who is not a danger to me, as clearly would be the case in this hypothetical instance.

Compounding the misery and pain of death by another death makes no sense to me. If the hypothetical perp got caught and were convicted of a capital crime I would testify or otherwise publically advocate against that individual's execution.

I am no doubt far to the left of you and most if not all of the forum's participants. However idealistic or far fetched such a position might seem, I consider my views and the policies that follow from them as highly practical. Thus, the term "bleeding heart" seems to me doubly flawed. It suggests that you don't know much about what progressives actually advocate or why, and, out of your ignorance of (or perhaps distaste for) a position with which you disagree, you are relying on name-calling.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Jan,

Papal infallibility is a very misunderstood concept and its scope is very limited in nature. The Pope rarely speaks ex cathedra and when he has it has been over doctrinal matters of faith - in the end an institution has to believe in something and someone has to have the final authority. The Vatican 2 crowd may wish for more collegiality in the Church leadership but I don't count myself among their number. While I know you, Jan, have a fairly sophisticated understanding of the Church and its history it never fails to amaze me how misunderstood Catholicism is by the vast majority of Protestants - at least the ones I encounter. And I fully support WA's freedom of speech and his right to profess views which are not only wrong but offensive (as I am sure he might feel about my views and my right to express them as well.) I just don't claim to know his eternal fate as he seems to know mine and that of my co-religionists.

That being said Happy New Year to all!

Karl


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> The Pope rarely speaks ex cathedra and when he has it has been over doctrinal matters of faith


To be precise, the Decree on the Church of Christ reads "The Roman Pontiff cannot err in defining matters of faith and morals". Don't forget morals, it gives much more scope to the dogma in question.

It could be argued, for example, that the Church position on condom use is subject to the dogma of Pontifical Infallibility (although that view has never been officially confirmed, to my knowledge).


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

There was a time in history when Popes led armies or called for Holy Wars to reclaim the Holyland. While the Papacy exerts profound geopolitical power I haven't heard Garrison Keiller recounting many atrocities against Lutherans lately. All things considered, I'd feel more comfortable debating the filioque with Pope Benedict than theology with Muktada el Sadr.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*LA Times sez Pope condemns execution*

Today's LA Times carried a storey to that effect. So, on this issue the Roman Catholic Church and I agree.

Regards,
Gurdon

PS: Happy New Year, 2007 CE, to all. I'm off to a very low key party to which I will not, alas, be able to wear my Oxxford dinner suit and RLPL (EG) pumps from ebay, nor the rest of a nice semi-formal rig. But then, the Thurstons suspenders haven't arrived, so my sox might not have stayed up.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Étienne said:


> To be precise, the Decree on the Church of Christ reads "The Roman Pontiff cannot err in defining matters of faith and morals". Don't forget morals, it gives much more scope to the dogma in question.
> 
> It could be argued, for example, that the Church position on condom use is subject to the dogma of Pontifical Infallibility (although that view has never been officially confirmed, to my knowledge).


The RCC has made clear there is not and has never been an ex cathedra declaration on condom use. In fact the Pope has spoken ex cathedra only twice in the last 200 years, both dealt with issues concerning Mary.

But a pronouncement doesn't have to be made ex cathedra to be considered infallible by Catholics. Almost all such teachings in the church have come either from ecumenical or Sacred Magisterium councils, not from Popes.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

crs said:


> My sources say you are only half-right. Apparently you are correct that the Pope does not decide who goes to heaven or hell. But at the Pearly Gates, they give you a spelling test and those who fail go to hell.


What?!

Heaven is freedom from spelling torture.

But, when you get to the pearly gates St. Peter will be waiting at the pearly gates for you. He'll look your name up and say "Oh, it's crs". Then he'll read the instructions in the book which will say something like in that Christmas movie Dolly Parton played in. Since I got a peak at your test it will be One Years Teaching First Graders How To Spell. Just don't fail. The angles tell me that hell is a hot place.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

The Gabba Goul said:


> I certainly hope that you are joking...
> 
> ****WARNING*** Another Gabba Goul double standard rant is fast approaching*
> 
> ...


Sorry The Gabba Goul. I'm a Holy Roller. You can say anything you want about Holy Rollers.

I believe a person should be able to say what they believe, of course, you don't have to believe them. Which means, you have the right to say what you think is wrong about what others believe. The purpose isn't to pick a fight, but to explain ones viewpoint and to learn about what others believe. Catholic, Protestants, whatever- nobody has it perfect. As time goes by the beliefs of each group changes some, and some a lot. Each generation is thrown it's own problems to try and solve. The Hippies failed. The generation before the hippies failed. In todays world Catholics and Pentecostals (Holy Rollers) find themselves with much in agreement because the world has changed so much. Wit against wit is fine. But, a fight is a war. The object is to have debates and not a war. A debate gives you something to think about. A war is often a waste of time. Martin Luther doesn't mean anything to me, especially after meeting a mafia thug who is Lutherian and believes he is going to heaven because of Lutherian doctrine. How can a thug go to heaven? Any group that says to obey them over God can't be of God. Protestants, Byzantine Orthodox, Catholic and others- none of these have a handle on God, nor has God given any of these any special rights. So, to put ones absolute belief in one group and blindly belief them- how wise is that?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> WA,
> 
> Your ignorance concerning Catholicism is seemingly boundless but just for the record Catholic doctrine does not say that the Pope determines the eternal fate of a person. One wonders where you picked up that theological chesnut. Nor is there doctrine of the elect within the Catholic Church. John Calvin is one of your guys, not ours.
> 
> Karl


Maybe I got it from the liberal news media. Anyway, putting the humor aside, that is the way it has come across to me right or wrong. One exCatholic, when I suggested the priest might be wrong said "The Holy Father could say something wrong"? It boggled his mind. From the reaction from this guy clearly whatever came out of the priest mouth was God speaking Himself through the priest mouth.

John Calvin is mind boggling wrong to me about salvation. I am not a Calvinist. In fact I don't even want to know what he believed, having heard and read enough. The word Protestants is meaningless, because of all the directions they go in.

Two groups which believe the same about how to get saved- Baptist and Pentecostals, after that it is a fun war zone. Coming from both leaves some choices. Chooseing has nothing to do with satisfiying parents or Church, which leads to they might both be wrong. So my beliefs aren't from being hoodwinked (Family Loyality, Church Loyality). Whatever the truth is - is what matters to me.

I believe a good example of learning from God is David the shepard boy. After stepping away from dead Golith he said there is no excuss for anybody throughout Israel for not having killed Golith. They were not interested in knowing God well enough so they could have killed Golith, and a boy showed them up. In other words, a working relation with God, not a book learned one, nor man learned (just look at all the doctrines on just one subject- they can't all be right).


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

JLibourel said:


> Just a few thoughts on random issues raised in this thread:
> 
> Saddam may have been a brutal, ruthless, bloody-handed dictator, but at least he kept order in that violent, fractious country. There is something to be said for that. On the major issues that most of us dislike about Arab/Muslim countries--religious intolerance and oppression of women--Iraq under Saddam had a better track record than most. I never could quite see the logic, when America was attacked by a bunch of religious crazies from more-or-less friendly Arab states, of attacking and destroying the most secular of Arab states, whose "infidel tyrant" was loathed by the jihadi types...but, then, nobody asked me. Had a stable, tolerant, democratic Iraq emerged out of the ruins of Saddam's despotism as a beacon and exemplar to the rest of the Middle East, I was prepared to admit that Bush and his Neocon buddies were wiser and more visionary men than a crabbed old naysayer like myself. However, if I were a betting man, I'd don't think I'd give good odds on our seeing a "stable, democratic, tolerant Iraq" anytime soon!
> QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*WA*

Happy New Yer gentlemen,

WA, I agree with your commens. The hippies did not fail IMO,
LOL
Have nice day


----------



## clothesboy (Sep 19, 2004)

Gurdon said:


> ...Compounding the misery and pain of death by another death makes no sense to me. ...
> Regards,
> Gurdon


Amen!


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Theres an irish proverb " When you fight dragons to long, you turn into a dragon." I too, in practise oppose the death penalty. It is flawed in sending many innocent people to their deaths, unfairly applied by race, economic status and political gain during elections. It also simply has not detered criminal activity. But meanwhile we have all these dragons flying about, or poorly imprisoned. How many Saddam loyalists have 'escaped' from prison lately? Prison is hardly a reform institution, but indeed punitive if not profitable in my own state. But we should reasonably expect prison to keep dangerous monsters from further injuring society. Instead we have convicts involved in breeding rare and very dangerous 'war dogs' who kill a gay women's volleyball coach for the crime of walking in her own hallway on the state level, and our 'leaders' klinking champagne glasses with other Saddams. It would be nice to implement social reforms that insure a young Adolph or Joseph won't be brutalised by cruel fathers and grow into them on a worldwide scale. It would be even nicer to recognise our own few molecules of that same evil when we feel satisfaction at their elimination.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Kav said:


> Instead we have convicts involved in breeding rare and very dangerous 'war dogs' who kill a gay women's volleyball coach for the crime of walking in her own hallway on the state level.


Just to set the record straight, Diane Alexis Whipple was the head coach of the women's lacrosse team at St. Mary's College. It always struck me as an excellent example of the debilitating effects of panic that poor Diane Whipple, a superbly athletic woman in top condition, couldn't have had the presence of mind to grab the dog by the harness he was wearing and fling him back long enough for her to get inside the door of her apartment, this before he took her down.

Most of the few Presas I have seen at rare breed and all-breed dog shows have seemed tractable and level-headed enough. There seems to have been some serious temperamental instability in the line of Bane's sire--a real crazy streak. Had this been brought into evidence during the trial, the the two attorneys taking care of the dogs probably would have been acquitted on all charges. As it was I still thought that case was a legal lynching, largely because the defendants were such unsympathetic people.

Anyway, I don't want to be too much of hijacker of this thread, even though it has already meandered some!


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Capital punishment is never justice


I'm guessing you didn't ask the families of victims placed feet first through a wood chipper.

MrR


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

MrRogers said:


> I'm guessing you didn't ask the families of victims placed feet first through a wood chipper.
> 
> MrR


That's all well and good, but usually if you want a dispassionate, rational response, you do not seek out such parties. Which is why when juries are selected, any potential jurors with the slightest connection to the case is sent home.


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

crs said:


> That's all well and good, but usually if you want a dispassionate, rational response, you do not seek out such parties. Which is why when juries are selected, any potential jurors with the slightest connection to the case is sent home.


Still, FrankDC's comment RE: CP never being justice is still incorrect as it does not take anyone's opinion besides his own into consideration. "Never" and "Always" need to be used with caution.

MrR


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

MrRogers said:


> Still, FrankDC's comment RE: CP never being justice is still incorrect as it does not take anyone's opinion besides his own into consideration. "Never" and "Always" need to be used with caution.
> 
> MrR


In this forum it's assumed the ideas expressed are simply opinions, and my opinion on this issue is the same as my church's: capital punishment is nothing but institutionalized murder with a politically correct label. I also stand by my original claim, that capital punishment serves and can serve no purpose but vindictive barbarism. It does not deter crime, it accomplishes nothing except to bring an entire society down to the same level as murderers.

The U.S. is one of the last remaining industrialized countries on Earth who still practices this legal murder.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> In this forum it's assumed the ideas expressed are simply opinions, and my opinion on this issue is the same as my church's: capital punishment is nothing but institutionalized murder with a politically correct label. I also stand by my original claim, that capital punishment serves and can serve no purpose but vindictive barbarism. It does not deter crime, it accomplishes nothing except to bring an entire society down to the same level as murderers.
> 
> The U.S. is one of the last remaining industrialized countries on Earth who still practices this legal murder.


Generally, I am not a big advocate of capitol punishiment. I really don't trust a government who can't seem to get much else right with the authority to take a life.

However, it didn't bother me much to see Saddam take that short drop. I think it was the only way to officially slam the door on his wicked life; I think that in this case where he was synonomous with the state, death was at once called for and symbolic. Saddam stood not only for his criminal self, but for a regieme. So I think it was appropriate.

I suppose we could have imprisoned him for life; maybe given him a choice of punishments that he himself oversaw. Now _that_ would have been vindictive and blood thirsty. Maybe we could have given him "life in prison" in his own infamous "Casket Prison":

"The dossier describes how, at the Mahjar prison in central Baghdad where 600-700 prisoners are split between underground cells and former dog kennels, two large oil tanks have been built nearby to flood the prison with petrol and burn it down in an emergency.

"At the Directorate of General Security building in Baghdad, prisoners in the Sijn al-Tarbut - known as the Casket Prison - are kept in rows of rectangular steel boxes until they confess or die. The boxes are opened once a day for half an hour and prisoners get no solid foods, the report said. Some prisoners survive for up to a year.

"In the separate Can Prison, detainees are locked in metal boxes the size of tea chests. Each box is said to have a tap for water and a meshed floor to allow them to defecate."

https://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1344302002

My guess is that by facing a simple quick hanging, having personally supervised the torturing, rape and murder god knows how many men, women, and children (many in front of family members), Saddam probably felt like he beat the system.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Liberty Ship said:


> Generally, I am not a big advocate of capitol punishiment. ...
> 
> However, it didn't bother me much to see Saddam take that short drop.


My sentiments, pretty much. Oppose it in principal, but do not grieve for all equally.

A great book on capital punishment:

https://www.amazon.com/Among-Lowest-Dead-David-Drehle/dp/0449225232

The author, formerly of The Miami Herald and Washington Post, just became
a political correspondent for Time magazine.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

As an aside to a couple comments I have read concerning race and application of capital punishment:

Biostatistics is the heart of public health. In the primary course on it everyone in my cohort had to take, the Prof gave out this huge data set for analysis as the final. It was the data set of a huge study done on the application of capital punishment. He chose the set very well, as most people in a graduate public health degree are very liberal (yes, many of my viewpoints were greatly at odds with everyone elses') and always assume if you are black or hispanic you will get CP more often if convicted of capital murder. He chose this set well because the actual answer is, race of the criminal has no statistical signifigance, so the typical liberal in this class had to submit an answer that went against the very fiber of their being.

The answer is race of the victim can be a "protective factor". If you kill a black person you are unlikely to get CP, regardless of your race. So yes, race is a factor, but not how everyone thinks it is.

Cheers and Happy New Year.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Are conviction rates also independent of race?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Concordia said:


> Are conviction rates also independent of race?


No idea. Was not part of that particular data set. I will leave it to the interested reader to do the research on their own.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Concordia said:


> Are conviction rates also independent of race?


How could one ever establish that? Wouldn't the first step be to determine whether a variance in the commission of crimes by race existed? And isn't the only way of doing that to examine conviction rates? Is there a way of doing this that isn't circular? I find it difficult to believe that a statistician could control for the myriad of crime specific facts that go into a jury deliberation on any particular defendant. Then again, I'm no statistician.....


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Rocker said:


> How could one ever establish that? Wouldn't the first step be to determine whether a variance in the commission of crimes by race existed? And isn't the only way of doing that to examine conviction rates? Is there a way of doing this that isn't circular? I find it difficult to believe that a statistician could control for the myriad of crime specific facts that go into a jury deliberation on any particular defendant. Then again, I'm no statistician.....


Actually, rates would be pretty basic stuff. One would simply determine the total number of court cases, broken out by specific crime and race, and divide the total number of convictions by the number of court cases. The number of commisions of said crime are totally meaningless in this rate or ratio...which is the power of using a ratio vs. raw numbers.

The question becomes however, is race a statistical factor in the conviction? Again, I will leave that research to the interested reader.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Yes, my point was that in order to determine whether race affected the conviction rate, you'd first need to determine whether the commissions of crimes actually varied by race so that you could control for the conviction rate i.e., if one race disproportionately committed rapes, one would expect their conviction rate to be disproportionate to other racial groups, as a percentage of the population. The problem is, I think, the only effective way to determine whether the commission of crimes varies by race is to rely on the potentially racially biased conviction rates.

In other words, I think, that in order to determine any bias, you have to start from a potentially skewed statistic right from the start - you have to assume that there's a very strong correlation between conviction by race and commission by race which means you're ignoring the effect of race bias on the conviction rate.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*His death itself*

Gentlemen

As much as what he had done. I was a big proponnent of his death by hanging.
What bothers me gentlemen, is the lack of dignity, in allowing him to die, peacfully at the gallows.
Apparently, the video, was from an onlooker, a hater of Saddam taunting him.
Which shows, the population that we are dealing with my friends.
Weel, not the best of the lot


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Yes, *my point was that in order to determine whether race affected the conviction rate, you'd first need to determine whether the commissions of crimes actually varied by race so that you could control for the conviction rate i.e., if one race disproportionately committed rapes, one would expect their conviction rate to be disproportionate to other racial groups, as a percentage of the population.* The problem is, I think, the only effective way to determine whether the commission of crimes varies by race is to rely on the potentially racially biased conviction rates.
> 
> In other words, I think, that in order to determine any bias, you have to start from a potentially skewed statistic right from the start - you have to assume that there's a very strong correlation between conviction by race and commission by race which means you're ignoring the effect of race bias on the conviction rate.


I have to agree with your first post, you are no statistician (and I am not either, but I do have a grasp on some basic probability theory concepts). You are using the term "rate" when what you really mean is "incidence". A "rate" is a special type of ratio used to compare a relationship between two disparate units. So the "rate" we are interested in would be the number of convictions per crime tried, by race. This would give us a ratio to compare convictions across racial (or any other division, i.e. SES). Again, this is a very easy thing to calculate and there is no need to "control" for this. Keep things simple is usually the best idea in such research. This same prof had a motto: the better the study, the less a researcher should need to consult a statistician, the poorer the study, the more a statistician is needed to make any use out of the data (his words, not mine and he's a Harvard trained Ph.D. in biostats, so he comes with a pretty good mind).

Your second paragraph is really off base about this kind of research. You state "you have to assume that there's a very strong correlation between...commission by race". That would be *exactly* the wrong thing to do in such a study, assume such a correlation. The whole idea is you collect the data and let the data speak for itself, not try and get it to demonstrate what you already have decided you want it to show.

Before you try to out-think me further on statistics, maybe you should do some reading on such things as rates, incidence, protective factors, skewness, control, confounding factors etc? Many times, just understanding some basic jargon helps to shape one's thoughts into the proper channels. Again, I am not a stat-quant-grunt either, so any corrections by a qualified person here would be appreciated by me.....maybe I am indeed incorrect.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

DukeGrad said:


> Gentlemen
> 
> As much as what he had done. I was a big proponnent of his death by hanging.
> What bothers me gentlemen, is the lack of dignity, in allowing him to die, peacfully at the gallows.
> ...


I agree with this and I think it makes it impossible for us to complain when our soldiers' bodies are displayed disrespectfully as in Somalia-BHD and Iraq.


----------



## narticus (Aug 24, 2006)

1) Wayfarer's finding from the class: there is no statistically significant correlation between the race of a convicted murderer and the likelihood of receiving the death penalty. Wayfarer didn't claim that the process of conviction lacked racial bias. He never said that the project found that the death penalty was applied equitably. 

2) Research is conducted against a null hypothesis, and this null hypothesis is to be assumed until the data proves otherwise. If you were testing for racial bias in murder convictions, you would start with the assumption that there was no bias until the data proved otherwise; bias would not be your assumption. Wayfarer is quite correct on this.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I agree with this and I think it makes it impossible for us to complain when our soldiers' bodies are displayed disrespectfully as in Somalia-BHD and Iraq.


Except that the process and execution were an Iraqi thing, not a US thing. By historic Iraqi standards, a simple hanging was a "mercy killing." If he had been tried in L.A., however, he would be free by now and writing a book.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Liberty Ship said:


> If he had been tried in L.A., however, he would be free by now and writing a book.


Curious statement given how crowded our prisons are and the fact we have a governor who's not afraid to administer the death penalty.

My wife worked as a forensic social worker in the juvenile criminal justice system for about a year and half not long ago, and, believe me, it's not all that lenient!


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

JLibourel said:


> My wife worked as a pyschiatric social worker in the juvenile criminal justice system for about a year and half not long ago, and, believe me, it's not all that lenient!


Especially when they let people out sooner than their time to make room for the new.

I believe in caining people with a shorter time span in prision. Why do the law enforcers, which they really aren't, pursue drug users and not dug pushers? Real law enforcers pursue the people who con, not the people that get conned.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> Capital punishment is never justice and it is never self-defense. It's vindictive barbarism which has (and can have) only one purpose: to appease demonic potential residing inside all people.


According to Avery Cardinal Dulles: "The Vatican City State from 1929 until 1969 had a penal code that included the death penalty for anyone who might attempt to assassinate the pope."

Curious, what demonic potential resided in the Papacy at that time?

Source: https://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0104/articles/dulles.html


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Rocker said:


> According to Avery Cardinal Dulles: "The Vatican City State from 1929 until 1969 had a penal code that included the death penalty for anyone who might attempt to assassinate the pope."
> 
> Curious, what demonic potential resided in the Papacy at that time?


I guess that would depend on whom you are talking to. For those who believe that Holy Mother Church is, in reality, The Whore of Babylon, residency of Beelzebub himself in the Holy See would not be unthinkable.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Lushington said:


> I guess that would depend on whom you are talking to. For those who believe that Holy Mother Church is, in reality, The Whore of Babylon, residency of Beelzebub himself in the Holy See would not be unthinkable.


Quite true - I suspect this is not FrankDC's view however. Just trying to give him a gentle push onto that petard.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

So, what do 'we' think of this development?

Texas Boy Hangs Self; Saw Saddam on TV


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

ksinc said:


> So, what do 'we' think of this development?
> 
> Texas Boy Hangs Self; Saw Saddam on TV


Boys will be boys.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Certainly a sad story, but I have to say that I'm a bit incredulous. I wonder if the boy had ever watched a Superman movie or any number of other movies or television shows depicting characters doing things that would be potentially dangerous/deadly for him to mimic.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Hate to sound so insensitive, but any kid who has reached the age of 10 and then hangs himself because he saw someone being executed on TV in this manner is probably enhancing the gene pool by his self-removal if he's that bloody stupid!

I can remember stories of little boys tying towels around their necks and plummeting to their dooms back when George Reeves was playing Superman. Could have been urban legends, though.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Rocker said:


> According to Avery Cardinal Dulles: "The Vatican City State from 1929 until 1969 had a penal code that included the death penalty for anyone who might attempt to assassinate the pope."
> 
> Curious, what demonic potential resided in the Papacy at that time?


It was the exact same potential resident in you. And me. I'd be the last one to claim any person or institution is exempt from it.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> It was the exact same potential resident in you. And me. I'd be the last one to claim any person or institution is exempt from it.


Great, now that you've conceded that the Vatican has a resident demonic potential, the question is whether that potential was being evidenced when, per your words, "[JP II] declared Bush's invasion to be 'neither legally nor morally justified.'" We know it was legally justified as Iraq and the U.S. had merely signed a ceasefire back in '91 which Iraq repeatedly violated - violation of a cease fire allows the conflict to continue, by its very terms. So, if JP II, said what you described, we know he was clearly wrong on one issue regarding the conflict.

As for the morality of it, one wonders why JP II was content top watch the Iran/Iraq war take 1,000,000 lives or whether he said anything about the gassing of Kurds, the butchering of Shia in the South, etc. The Papacy has hardly been shy about conferring its blessings on blood shedding military endeavors in the past - maybe the demonic potential was expressed in his, apparent, indifference to muslim butchery prior to the invasion and his unwillingness to take any concrete action such as mustering world opinion against it. How do you know when "demonic" forces are at work and what their long-term plans are


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Rocker!*

Rcoker,

Very funny! LOL, made my day


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

+1 on everything Jan has written on this thread, except his initial willingness to give the neocons the benefit of the doubt. I knew from before the start that even if they had a good idea (which they never have, dating back to the 1980s) they lacked the basic administrative competence to implement it with any degree of efficacy.

Beyond that, it is really a pity that this criminal was the victim of another common act of criminality: murder at the hands of an aggressive power through a kangaroo court only technically in the hands of a hapless quisling "government."

Another _very_ interesting facet of this charade to me is the extraordinarily narrow grounds on which Saddam Hussein was convicted, considering the alleged crimes highlighted in neocon propaganda arrayed against his misrule that some posters are still quoting without basis in fact. What was the only charge for which SH was even tried? The murder of 143 people in 1982 to retaliate for an assassination attempt in the midst of a war. None of the other charges against him were deemed important enough to bother airing in public. Does anyone think that maybe, just maybe, the Anfal campaign (including the Halabja massacre) and others were not even broached because the quisling government's string-pullers didn't want information about the sources of Iraq's chemical weapons entering the official global public record? Or perhaps the analysis offered by Pelletiere, et al., of Halabja - i.e. that it was a horrible and criminally negligent Iranian military accident (they would've had no interest or desire in harming the Kurds, who were the enemy of their enemy, so it was probably not intentional) rather than a deliberate Iraqi act of genocide - are largely true, and perhaps now that Saddam's out of the way they will be used as propaganda to build up fervor for baseless aggression against Iran amongst America's massive idiot caste?

No love for Saddam here, nor opposition to the death penalty in principle, but does anyone really think what was administered by these quislings under Comrade Bush's watchful guns and bombs is _justice?_

When Comrades Rummy, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, and Bush (to say nothing of Olhmert, et al.) get sent up for their crimes against humanity in front of a neutral court, alongside their fellow-travelers such as Slobodan Milosevic and Charles Taylor, such proceedings may have some validity. But right now I don't think anyone can call anything that's happened in Iraq since Comrade Bush ordered our forces to attack the place "justice."


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Great, now that you've conceded that the Vatican has a resident demonic potential, the question is whether that potential was being evidenced when, per your words, "[JP II] declared Bush's invasion to be 'neither legally nor morally justified.'" We know it was legally justified as Iraq and the U.S. had merely signed a ceasefire back in '91 which Iraq repeatedly violated - violation of a cease fire allows the conflict to continue, by its very terms. So, if JP II, said what you described, we know he was clearly wrong on one issue regarding the conflict.
> 
> As for the morality of it, one wonders why JP II was content top watch the Iran/Iraq war take 1,000,000 lives or whether he said anything about the gassing of Kurds, the butchering of Shia in the South, etc. The Papacy has hardly been shy about conferring its blessings on blood shedding military endeavors in the past - maybe the demonic potential was expressed in his, apparent, indifference to muslim butchery prior to the invasion and his unwillingness to take any concrete action such as mustering world opinion against it. How do you know when "demonic" forces are at work and what their long-term plans are


You appear to know very little about PJPII. The man spoke against all wars and invasions during his papacy -- every one of them -- and he was a relentless advocate against religious extremism and for religious tolerance. If you never heard or read his speeches, encyclicals etc it's simply because you've chosen not to.

Secondly, my opinion about captial punishment is obviously just that. An opinion. I see it as serving no purpose except vindictive barbarism, and in this context it logically follows that it caters to the demonic potential inside all people. That the Vatican and Popes aren't immune from this potential doesn't disprove my opinion.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Well the good news is the charges against Saddam for killing the Kurds were dropped. Bad phrase there, sorry. Bad news is yet another cellphone video of his body is beginning to circulate.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> Secondly, my opinion about captial punishment is obviously just that. An opinion. I see it as serving no purpose except vindictive barbarism, and in this context it logically follows that it caters to the demonic potential inside all people. That the Vatican and Popes aren't immune from this potential doesn't disprove my opinion.


No, it certainly doesn't. Again, it only leaves open the question of whether JP II (whom you quoted to support your statement that the Iraq war was wrong), was under demonic influence when he declared his opposition. You cited him as a moral authority; You conceded that the Vatican was open to demonic potential. We know that the papacy has historically endorsed both war and the death penalty. Given this inconsistent treatment by the Papacy - how do you know JP II was not spouting a demon's agenda? How do you know when "demonic" forces are at work and what their long-term plans are?


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Maybe I haven't been following this thread too closely but are we talking about a demonic agenda of the papacy, whether past or present? If we actually are, then I am incredulous.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

KenR said:


> Maybe I haven't been following this thread too closely but are we talking about a demonic agenda of the papacy, whether past or present? If we actually are, then I am incredulous.


Start at my post here to follow the point:
https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=63622&page=20

I believe, by implication, it was FrankDC who introduced the concept of a potential demonic agenda in the Vatican - I merely connected the dots, as it were.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Rocker said:


> No, it certainly doesn't. Again, it only leaves open the question of whether JP II (whom you quoted to support your statement that the Iraq war was wrong), was under demonic influence when he declared his opposition. You cited him as a moral authority; You conceded that the Vatican was open to demonic potential. We know that the papacy has historically endorsed both war and the death penalty. Given this inconsistent treatment by the Papacy - how do you know JP II was not spouting a demon's agenda? How do you know when "demonic" forces are at work and what their long-term plans are?


That's some majorly contorted logic, your last post even moreso. While the Vatican has changed its position on many issues over the centuries, PJPII was entirely consistent in his opposition to both capital punishment and the U.S. invasion of Iraq. While I stand by my statement that no man or institution is immune from demonic potential, I believe PJPII was correct in his judgment on these two issues.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> That's some majorly contorted logic, your last post even moreso. While the Vatican has changed its position on many issues over the centuries, PJPII was entirely consistent in his opposition to both capital punishment and the U.S. invasion of Iraq. While I stand by my statement that no man or institution is immune from demonic potential, I believe PJPII was correct in his judgment on these two issues.


No contortion just break down in your thought process. I would expect no less from someone who condemns fundametalist absolutism and then informs people who support the death penalty that they're going to hell.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Rocker said:


> No contortion just break down in your thought process. I would expect no less from someone who condemns fundametalist absolutism and then informs people who support the death penalty that they're going to hell.


The two opinions are not mutually exclusive. In fact one opinion has absolutely nothing to do with the other. You really need to stop these ridiculous leaps of logic, and putting words in my mouth.

I believe the Bible is a great collection of books, I also believe interpreting it literally (at least the OT) is nothing short of ridiculous. What does that have to do with my belief that capital punishment is immoral? The Bible could not exist at all and it wouldn't have the slightest bearing on my opinion of CP.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> *The Bible could not exist at all and it wouldn't have the slightest bearing on my opinion of CP.*


Speaking of leaps of logic, you would have no way of knowing this...


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

whnay. said:


> Speaking of leaps of logic, you would have no way of knowing this...


Hogwash. Reading the Bible, or even knowing of its existence is not a prerequisite for forming an opinion about CP. I'm telling you I arrived at my opinion without any regard to that particular set of books.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> You really need to stop these ridiculous leaps of logic, and putting words in my mouth.


Well, you are correct on one thing - and I apologize - you didn't say people who believe in the death penalty were going to hell, you said people who supported the Iraq invasion were going to hell.

Specifically, "This makes Mr. Bush a mass murderer, and those who supported the invasion accomplices to mass murder. Try not to wail and gnash your teeth too hard as you're cast into hell."


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Well, you are correct on one thing - and I apologize - you didn't say people who believe in the death penalty were going to hell, you said people who supported the Iraq invasion were going to hell.
> 
> Specifically, "This makes Mr. Bush a mass murderer, and those who supported the invasion accomplices to mass murder. Try not to wail and gnash your teeth too hard as you're cast into hell."


Yes those were my exact words. If you believe PJPII's declaration that the invasion was "not legally or morally justified", i.e. "This makes", only one logical conclusion to that opinion is possible. It logically follows that Bush is a mass murderer, and those who support this mass murder are complicit to it. Again, assuming you believe the Pope's words (which I do), what other conclusion is possible? I'd sincererly appreciate an answer to that question from you or anyone.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> The two opinions are not mutually exclusive. In fact one opinion has absolutely nothing to do with the other. You really need to stop these ridiculous leaps of logic, and putting words in my mouth.
> 
> I believe the Bible is a great collection of books, I also believe interpreting it literally (at least the OT) is nothing short of ridiculous. What does that have to do with my belief that capital punishment is immoral? The Bible could not exist at all and it wouldn't have the slightest bearing on my opinion of CP.


In many cases you put forth logical arguments. It's your condemnation of those who disagree with you that helps turn these threads on their ear.

Oh my God, I disagree with you. I guess I am going to hell....

No love the sinner, hate the sin?


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

KenR said:


> In many cases you put forth logical arguments. It's your condemnation of those who disagree with you that helps turn these threads on their ear.
> 
> Oh my God, I disagree with you. I guess I am going to hell....
> 
> No love the sinner, hate the sin?


No- it's when you can't support your arguments, resort to _ad hominem_ attacks- Works every time!:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> Yes those were my exact words. If you believe PJPII's declaration that the invasion was "not legally or morally justified", i.e. "This makes", only one logical conclusion to that opinion is possible. It logically follows that Bush is a mass murderer, and those who support this mass murder are complicit to it. Again, assuming you believe the Pope's words (which I do), what other conclusion is possible? I'd sincererly appreciate an answer to that question from you or anyone.


Geez FrankDC - I 've gone over this with you.

I don't care what the Pope said about "legality" - he wasn't an international lawyer, and as I said he's just factually WRONG. The U.S. and Iraq were parties to a cease-fire agreement (like North Korea and the U.S. today). The Iraqis repeatedly violated the cease fire agreement, and we were legally justified in resuming the war with Iraq at any time. Now, if JPII had said the same thing about the first gulf war, you might have a leg to stand on. But you and he are just wrong. I know there are Kool-Aid drinkers out there who like to talk about the war being "illegal" - but that's simply bunk.

You also stated that "Capital punishment is never justice and it is never self-defense. It's vindictive barbarism which has (and can have) only ONE purpose [emphasis added]: to appease demonic potential residing inside all people." Now, as I stated, we know Vatican City had a death penalty from 1929 to 1969 and it surely must have been supported by the various Pontiffs holding office at the time so, we must assume that, for instance, beatified Pope Pius XII allowed the death penalty to be law because he was appeasing the demonic potential in him - this is the ONLY logical conclusion from your statement. When I pointed this out to you, you stated "I'd be the last one to claim any person or institution is exempt from it [Demonic Potential]." So you seem perfectly OK with the concept that a Pope can be governed by demonic forces/desires.

My question to you then was - given that you acknowledge Popes can be governed by demonic forces/desires, how do you know that what JP II said about the Iraq war wasn't said under demonic influence? We know he was absolutely wrong about the legality of the war, how do we know that what he said about the morality of it wasn't wrong too? Your answer seems to be because you believe the war was immoral as well - not a very convincing analysis. How do you know what the demons want? You've conceded demonic potential in Popes - how do you know when they are under such influences when they say things?

I'm not really prepared to go into the nuances of Just War Theory (who has the time?) and the moral culpability or citizens who voted for a President who wages a war. It's a morass and I don't want to get bogged down i.e., do you support the war by paying taxes, etc. My objection is to your arrogance in stating that people who supported the war are going to hell (how do you know? - isn't that left to God?); if there is an opposite to the Sin of Presumption - you may well have committed it.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Yes those were my exact words. *If you believe PJPII's declaration that the invasion was "not legally or morally justified", i.e. "This makes", only one logical conclusion to that opinion is possible. It logically follows that Bush is a mass murderer, and those who support this mass murder are complicit to it.* Again, assuming you believe the Pope's words (which I do), what other conclusion is possible? I'd sincererly appreciate an answer to that question from you or anyone.


This conclusion is not logical but absurd. If you follow the Pope's declaration then the conclusion would be that the President would be wrong for starting the war, not a mass murderer. The President's goals, whether misguided or not, were to depose Saddam and, as peacefully as possible, bring democracy to Iraq. Your blind hatred of the President masquerading as self rightousness is appalling and your condemnation of those of us who might have supported him as being complicit in a mass murder is ridiculous in the extreme.

Just my 2 cents......

Regards,

Ken


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

DukeGrad said:


> Gentlemen
> 
> As much as what he had done. I was a big proponnent of his death by hanging.
> What bothers me gentlemen, is the lack of dignity, in allowing him to die, peacfully at the gallows.
> ...


exactly right.

they should have had an execution team that either liked him, or at least was extremly neutral. the punishment is the death, not the minutes leading up to the death.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> Hogwash. Reading the Bible, or even knowing of its existence is not a prerequisite for forming an opinion about CP. I'm telling you I arrived at my opinion without any regard to that particular set of books.


I think you fail to understand the effect to which the Bible has had on Western Civilization. The moral principals that served as a foundation of our rights as American citizens in the late 18th century were no doubt influenced by the teachings of the Bible. Over the years you, I and everyone else on this board have been influenced and guided by principals unique to Christianity as a religion. Morals, as it were, just no form out of thin air.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

KenR said:


> This conclusion is not logical but absurd. If you follow the Pope's declaration then the conclusion would be that the President would be wrong for starting the war, not a mass murderer. The President's goals, whether misguided or not, were to depose Saddam and, as peacefully as possible, bring democracy to Iraq. Your blind hatred of the President masquerading as self rightousness is appalling and your condemnation of those of us who might have supported him as being complicit in a mass murder is ridiculous in the extreme.
> 
> Just my 2 cents......
> 
> ...


Three days before Bush invaded Iraq he addressed the American people and claimed:

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

This was an outright lie. Bush knew it was a lie at the time he said it. There never was "no doubt". Bush knew the only intelligence he had which left "no doubt" is that which he and Mr. Blair had fabricated out of thin air.

A man wrongly accuses you of crimes you didn't commit, marches into your home and kills you, your family and 60,000 of your neighbors for these supposed crimes. What label would you use for that, other than mass murder?

The House impeached Bill Clinton for lying about a blowjob.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

whnay. said:


> I think you fail to understand the effect to which the Bible has had on Western Civilization. The moral principals that served as a foundation of our rights as American citizens in the late 18th century were no doubt influenced by the teachings of the Bible. Over the years you, I and everyone else on this board have been influenced and guided by principals unique to Christianity as a religion.


Name one.

You fail to understand our Constitution and laws have absolutely nothing to do with principles unique to the Bible or Christianity as a religion.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Three days before Bush invaded Iraq he addressed the American people and claimed:
> 
> "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
> 
> ...


Crimes _who_ didn't commit? WMD's either were or weren't there. Saddam refused to cooperate with the inspectors. And of course he committed no other crimes. He was one swell guy. Should have stayed in office. His sons too. 60,000 "neighbors" did not die because George Bush killed them. They died because the country imploded as a result of the political instability caused by the war.

Blind hatred.....


----------



## narticus (Aug 24, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> The House impeached Bill Clinton for lying about a blowjob.


Clinton wasn't impeached for lying about a blowjob; he could have told the media "I didn't have sex with that woman" a hundred times, and it wouldn't be impeachable. Lying to a Grand Jury is perjury, even if it's about a blowjob.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

KenR said:


> Crimes _who_ didn't commit? WMD's either were or weren't there. Saddam refused to cooperate with the inspectors.


Hussein's regime did cooperate with inspectors, and Bush knew perfectly well it was impossible for Hussein to prove a negative. Bush had made the decision to invade Iraq within three months of his taking office. He couldn't allow UN inspections to continue because they were showing (and by any reasonable logic, would have concluded) there was no evidence of WMD or WMD development in Iraq. Every day the claim that Hussein represented an imminent threat to our national security was becoming more and more ridiculous, as was the justification for an invasion.



KenR said:


> And of course he committed no other crimes. He was one swell guy. Should have stayed in office. His sons too. 60,000 "neighbors" did not die because George Bush killed them. They died because the country imploded as a result of the political instability caused by the war.
> 
> Blind hatred.....


For 20+ years Hussein dealt with the exact same factional fighting that is now taking the lives of our kids. To claim the U.S. can "win", or even has any business in the civil war of another country is the same delusional thinking some people had about Vietnam 40 years ago, and about Korea a decade before that.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> Name one.
> 
> You fail to understand our Constitution and laws have absolutely nothing to do with principles unique to the Bible or Christianity as a religion.


Free will.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> Name one.
> 
> You fail to understand our Constitution and laws have absolutely nothing to do with principles unique to the Bible or Christianity as a religion.


Appalingly wrong - what do you mean by "laws"? Do you mean our common law?

You think American law developed whole cloth upon the ratification of the Constitution - devoid of the influence that Christianty had on the development of European culure, law, and philosophy for the previous 1400 or so years?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

whnay. said:


> Free will.


That concept goes back at least to the ancient Greeks, probably further. Try again.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Appalingly wrong - what do you mean by "laws"? Do you mean our common law?
> 
> You think American law developed whole cloth upon the ratification of the Constitution - devoid of the influence that Christianty had on the development of European culure, law, and philosophy for the previous 1400 or so years?


Here we go again. That's NOT what I said. Yes, Christianity had an influence. No, its principles are not unique to that religion.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> Here we go again. That's NOT what I said. Yes, Christianity had an influence. No, its principles are not unique to that religion.


Fine, here you go:

1) No alcohol purchases on Sunday


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Fine, here you go:
> 
> 1) No alcohol purchases on Sunday


That's not a uniquely Biblical or Christian principle, simply an absurd misinterpretation of one.

"The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> That's not a uniquely Biblical or Christian principle, simply an absurd misinterpretation of one.
> 
> "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."


Of ourse it is. You said, "You fail to understand our Constitution and laws have absolutely nothing to do with principles unique to the Bible or Christianity as a religion." This is a law that is on the books of a number of states for the singular purpose of showing respect for the sabbath (though they have to use different justifications in the last 30 years or so) - the law would not exist, but for the Bible. You lose.

I have no idead - but I would suspect that, until recently, the prohibition of infanticide was uniquely Christian.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Of ourse it is. You said, "You fail to understand our Constitution and laws have absolutely nothing to do with principles unique to the Bible or Christianity as a religion." This is a law that is on the books of a number of states for the singular purpose of showing respect for the sabbath (though they have to use different justifications in the last 30 years or so) - the law would not exist, but for the Bible. You lose.


Ok I concede the point, although it's a perfect example of what happens when government decides to become an interpreter and enforcer of religious belief.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> Ok I concede the point, although it's a perfect example of what happens when government decides to become an interpreter and enforcer of religious belief.


Yeah, it irritates me qiute a bit when I run out of bourbon on a weekend and can't buy a replacement supply on Sunday - that's when I start screaming "separation of church and state" :icon_smile:


----------

