Laughing at Saddam

POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Monday, January 5, 2026 21:57
VIEWED: 10444
PAGE 7 of 17

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE

RUE

Sunday, January 7, 2007 4:13 AM

What is execution in 'justice ... after due process'? It's a government setting laws and enforcing them by fear of death. Same story, different decoration. It still comes down to rule by fear of death.

GEEZER

Sunday, January 7, 2007 4:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
What is execution in 'justice ... after due process'? It's a government setting laws and enforcing them by fear of death. Same story, different decoration. It still comes down to rule by fear of death.

So we're attempting to segue from laughing at Saddam to a discussion of the death penalty. Won't work. If he had been killed by a bomb during the early weeks of the war, or in a suicidal charge at Coalition forces, or by a rampaging mob of Sadristas, I'd still mock him and belittle his death.

You've played the troll in the last half of this thread, making accusations and moral pronouncements on other people's points of view without stating your own, failing to respond to questions, and changing the subject when you talk yourself into a corner. Express an opinion, or shut up. Why do I doubt either will occur?

Edited to add:

Quote:
It still comes down to rule by fear of death.

So there's no moral difference in your mind between an elected government saying "We'll punish you if you violate the rights of our citizens, including killing them in great numbers" and a dictator saying "I'll punish you if you don't let my sons rape your daughter".

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CHRISISALL

Sunday, January 7, 2007 4:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Mal had no problem pushing a wounded and helpless man into the port engine of Serenity (The Train Job) because the guy would have eventually been a threat, and for intimidation value. Works for me.

Geezer, you are so wrong on so many levels.
You saw him as wounded and helpless?
Eventually a threat????
He was unable to sucessfully attack AT THE MOMENT.
He controlled his destiny, and HE chose to attempt to intimidate- he wouldn't "eventually become" a threat; he was stating that he was a continuous living threat.

And my biggest sadness for you: "for intimidation value". You truly believe that that was Mal had in mind? That you could read that into the scene is where all of the anger at you comes from, dude.
The joke was that it happened to work out that way. Mal did it to protect his crew, and some part of him was unhappy about his percieved forced decision.

But for you, it was Mal using a man as a tool, killing him to help achieve a desired end- this is the same accepting attitude toward killing that fuels my rage at Neo-Con idiots, and the same thinking that makes an Operative possible.

Your heart ain't workin' Geez, you need to look to that.

Chrisisall

GEEZER

Sunday, January 7, 2007 5:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
He was unable to sucessfully attack AT THE MOMENT.
He controlled his destiny, and HE chose to attempt to intimidate- he wouldn't "eventually become" a threat; he was stating that he was a continuous living threat.

And my biggest sadness for you: "for intimidation value". You truly believe that that was Mal had in mind? That you could read that into the scene is where all of the anger at you comes from, dude.
The joke was that it happened to work out that way. Mal did it to protect his crew, and some part of him was unhappy about his percieved forced decision.

Cool. You just justified the invasion of Iraq.

To paraphrase:

"Saddam was unable to sucessfully attack AT THE MOMENT. Saddam controlled his destiny, and HE chose to attempt to intimidate- he wouldn't "eventually become" a threat; he was stating that he was a continuous living threat. The joke was that it happened to work out that way. Bush did it to protect his Country, and some part of him was unhappy about his percieved forced decision."

Couldn't have said it better myself.
"

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CHRISISALL

Sunday, January 7, 2007 5:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

To paraphrase:

"Saddam was unable to sucessfully attack AT THE MOMENT. Saddam controlled his destiny, and HE chose to attempt to intimidate- he wouldn't "eventually become" a threat; he was stating that he was a continuous living threat. The joke was that it happened to work out that way. Bush did it to protect his Country, and some part of him was unhappy about his percieved forced decision."

Okay props for being clever. Now to the point....

Saddam was backing down and asking the UN to inspect more; he knew he was gonna get it, and was not being intimidating. At no point did he state that he would kill us all.
Bush did not do it to protect us, you are either drunk or high to say that seriously.

Dig it deeper, man. You're losing whatever ground you had. Nice dodge of what I posted, though.
I can hear the "What did I dodge?" coming, so don't bother.
It doesn't matter anymore, anyway.
You're 24 karat Repug.

Chrisisall

GEEZER

Sunday, January 7, 2007 8:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Saddam was backing down and asking the UN to inspect more; he knew he was gonna get it, and was not being intimidating. At no point did he state that he would kill us all.
Bush did not do it to protect us, you are either drunk or high to say that seriously.

Dig it deeper, man. You're losing whatever ground you had. Nice dodge of what I posted, though.
I can hear the "What did I dodge?" coming, so don't bother.
It doesn't matter anymore, anyway.
You're 24 karat Repug.

Okay. First you insult me, and then you ask me to do your research for you. Neither you or Rue seem to have a position about Saddam's atrocities, or whether he should have been punished for them.

Why not stop doing The Argument Sketch, and actually state your position in re Saddam's crimes, guilt, and punishment, and the reasoning behind it?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CARTOON

Sunday, January 7, 2007 8:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Okay. First you insult me, and then you ask me to do your research for you. Neither you or Rue seem to have a position about Saddam's atrocities, or whether he should have been punished for them.

Just wanted to let you know that you're not the only sane person left in this thread, Geezer. Some folks are just so blinded by their hatred of Bush that they will go to any lengths to defend someone (regardless of how evil, vicious and depraved they may be) against whom Bush actually had the fortitude to finally say "enough is enough". The United Nations is a joke -- their sanctions and "resolutions" had about as much teeth to them as a Tickle Me Elmo doll.

You're beating the proverbial dead horse in here, Geezer. People with the capacity to reason can see the truth behind your statements -- although, I personally still would not ridicule Saddam Hussein, he certainly got better than what he'd dished out to his hundreds of thousands of victims.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, January 7, 2007 8:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Okay. First you insult me,

No. First I complimented you on the clever.

Quote:
and then you ask me to do your research for you.

No. I stated opinions.

Quote:
Neither you or Rue seem to have a position about Saddam's atrocities, or whether he should have been punished for them.

I believe I speak not only for Rue, but for every thinking being when I say that Saddam was a monster (and yes, once again, one we helped to be all he could be), and his crimes were most heinous. He deserved punishment in the form of life without possibility of cable.
Now, just speaking for me, if some relative of his victims got to him and offed him, that would be between them, and I would certainly endorse a hefty fine on that action- like $100.
See, he deserved what he got and more, but it shouldn't be up to us as a society to hang someone after a trial with no appeal process.
And if it WAS rightly judged that he die after due process, a painless injection would have done it.
We sink to the level of our so-called enemies when we...you know, sink to their level.

But then, you're the type to believe and endorse Mal to be a cold killer. From your POV, Mal and the Operative are the same, right? Only their objective differs, and that's what's wrong with you Geezer- the fight fire with fire, eye for an eye mentality.
You've learned NOTHING from Serenity.

But we always can change Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Sunday, January 7, 2007 8:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
he certainly got better than what he'd dished out to his hundreds of thousands of victims.

WITH OUR HELP, WITH OUR PERMISSION, WITH OUR BLIND EYE, you {those lacking in brainpower} seem to not get that. We got him to where he was, {unintelligent ones}! We didn't lift a finger to stop him until Kuwait's gold and oil was being jacked. Then, all of a sudden, AFTER all the deaths, he's this WMD-armed world threat. Why don't you wake up and smell what you're shoveling?
Pathetic psuedo-patriotic {persons}.

Tasmanian Chrisisall

Edited to preserve content while remaining angry

GEEZER

Sunday, January 7, 2007 9:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Now, just speaking for me, if some relative of his victims got to him and offed him, that would be between them, and I would certainly endorse a hefty fine on that action- like $100.
See, he deserved what he got and more, but it shouldn't be up to us as a society to hang someone after a trial with no appeal process.
And if it WAS rightly judged that he die after due process, a painless injection would have done it.

Okay. So your position is that it's all right for an individual to murder someone if they feel they need revenge, but not all right for a state to execute someone after due process (An appeal was filed, BTW, on Dec. 03, 2006. A panel of nine judges reviewed the verdict and concurred with it.) for crimes committed agains the people of the state. You running for attorney-general and trying to court the gang-banger vote?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE