Until we get level 3 techlepathy, and then we'll all be happy and non-violent Unified people. If the US doesn't step in and ban it of course.

Saddam was an idiot. Although, he was quite funny in South Park.

Except I don't worship Allah. I worship mighty Thor.

I take exception to being called 'worthy of Saddam' for supporting the death penalty - in what way does someone who takes life deserve to have life? Treat others the way you wish to be treated - so if killing others is your game, dead is your name. I fail to see how much progress is made by keeping him in jail for his life, I doubt he'd care very much, to be honest, and it'd only be so long before he'd be broken out (or at least an attempt resulting in deaths).

Also, didn't Saddam say he'd rather be killed than staying in prison? If so, what would be your view on euthanasia?

Wouldn't you rather one person die than thousands of people die? In my opinion, killing one person is 'less of a crime' than killing thousands.

I'm less worried about the blood lust of the world than I am that some people seem to suggest that he's innocent. It gets on my nerves when people say the death penalty is inhumane - of course it's inhumane, but it's for a good cause as it inevitably reduces the chance of more inhumane acts. People are less likely to murder someone when the prospect of death for them lurks just round the corner - from what I can make out, prison isn't as bad as some would make out. Nothing compared to death anyway.

Sorry, just had to get that out of my system. [/RANT]

The test of our progression as a race lies in whether we continiue to hold on to this "eye for an eye" mentality or not. The way we carry out things is out of revenge, not justice. The death penalty is stupid because once we do it we do the very same thing that the person on deathrow did. It's perfectly fine to just lock the person up nice and tight. For 1) He will be ultimately powerless, 2) He can't interact with the outside world, and 3) any followers of his will have their morale weakened as opposed to if we killed him.

Point taken. That pretty much sums up what I've been trying to say the whole time. It's quite obvous that the consequences of what he's done were due, but again - his death was completely untimely. For instance, the Democrats have entered the Congress and the US is planning on withdrawing. Will this be a possibility if the violence escalates further? I think not. It's very important to avoid being short-sighted in this question. Saying "he's killed, so he should die" is being just that, because few people would stop to consider how many more people could potentially become victims of the war due to his execution.

In reverse, that would be like valuing one person over a thousand. It doesn't hold for long. There is no difference between killing and killing. However, I'd be a hypocrite to say that I would rather let thousands die before one single man. If it were up to me, I'd make the easy call and let myself go.
Something to think about.

If it were up to me, I would withdrawl compeltely without hesitiation. With things like chasing insurgents and the green zone, this war has no meaning anymore. Not even a bad one.

The Democrats may have taken over Congress, yes, but I will be surprised if they formulate a good exit plan for Iraq. Good ideas are useless unless there is action to them. To be honest, most of the people in Washingston care more about getting re-elected instead of truly bettering our country.

I dont like the hanging a punishment. especialy for smugling drugs,
but didn't sadam murder hundreds of people?

I'm not disagreeing with your point, but I feel the need to point out to everyone who uses the phrase that it's the most taken-out-of-context quote of all time. Ancient Jewish rabbis (yes, it's a biblical quote, in case you didn't know) understood the phrase to mean that if you injure someone's eye or knock out a tooth, you have to pay compensation to the value of that eye or tooth. How do you do this? You go to a slave trader (What?! We're talking 1000BC here) and ask what the value of the man is with an eye and without and pay the difference.

Figures it was filmed by someone who doesn't know how to hold back his CP.

So in other words, if you took out someone's eye, you would just pay them a load of cash? Still sounds like a bullshit saying to me.

You're talking about the progression of mankind, and then you're talking about valuing one person's life over a thousand people's? From my view that is the ultimate selfish thing to say. One person died, a tragedy to his/her family - yet each of a thousand people are individuals, not in some kind of collective. Each one matters just as much as the other. I'd rather one family be broken and distraught than one-thousand.

I don't see why people think it's 'barbaric' to have someone killed for killing someone else. They get a taste of their own medicine. Why not rid the world of another 'barbarian?'

Also, maybe the 'eye for an eye' thing is out of context - but I also quoted 'Do unto others as they do unto you,' still remains valid! :P

We have the death penalty for animals anyway... and they don't even commit crimes! ;P

How is that different to today's legal system. You take someone's eye out, you're going to have your pants sued off.

I don't think you quite follow. I never made a statement concerning that quote in particular - all I said was - it's something to consider. If someone were to say "Oprah Winfrey died last night", people would definitely consider that a tragedy. If however, someone would say "100 people died when a car bomb exploded near a marketplace in Tikrit", most people would only see that as a statistic, because as soon as you start counting dead bodies, you tend to steer away from the individuality you mention. Indeed, each individual counts for his/her family, I can fully understand that, but I was being objective here when quoting and that's something you need to understand.

Also, in response to ;
Progression? Hello? When did I mention anything about the progression of mankind? All I see is regression, mind you. Also, I never said that I would value one person's life over a thousand. Please quote me if I did, because all I'm able to find is;

Read that thoroughly, it was only meant as a counterstatement to your first response. Basically, what I'm saying is that if you were to view it from another point of view, you might as well say that it's the same thing as valuing one person over a thousand. I never said I would be the person to do that though, so I'd appreciate it if you would spend some time reading what I've actually written and avoid twisting everything around.

I wasn't comparing those times to modern times, I was trying to express how even though you clarified the saying a bit, it still expressed how materials or revenge is necessary to compensate for a loss or injury of yours caused by someone else. Now an eye is something notable to lose by another's hand and there is the case of iif a loss was accidental or not, but you know what I'm saying.

Well if I lost an eye, that would affect my ability to do many things I either enjoy or have to do. Even more so if I lived in 1500BC. So I would like to be compensated for that. Now, an eye is only an example. The same principle holds for any other injury you may do to someone.

Either way, you're right that that statement doesn't take into account whether the injury was accidental or not. And, once again, I must point out that is has been taken out of context. For more information, read the Talmud. The 60-odd volumes of discussion and commentary should impress upon you that little in the bible can be taken at face value.

Sorry, that was Used who said that.

That sentance implies that you're saying that it doesn't matter how many people are killed, or who is killed, or the circumstance of someone being killed. If there's no difference between killing and killing, then there's no difference between someone shooting Hitler (I know this didn't happen except for himself, just an example) and decapitating the kid next door. Be careful of the statements you make! ;)

What mainly annoys me here is when people treat him with the same respect as a normal, average Joe. The fact is, he isn't. I would cross him off the list of 'humans' if it was up to me.

In my opinion, the amount of war wouldn't have been different no matter what the outcome. There are a few scenarios.

1) Saddam is executed, terrorists go wild because their leader is killed and they don't understand why he's evil.

2) Saddam is released, free from his crimes - then continues to lead the mass of his terrorist forces and military. He reassumes his position as 'Most Dangerous Individual In The World,' and he is extra violent because he doesn't believe he was supposed to be held in court at all, and he knows his enemies are too pissy to do anything about him.

3) Saddam is sentanced to life imprisonment. The terrorists go wild because their saintly leader has been locked up for no reason, and is as good as dead for them. They will either attempt break-outs with variable consequences, or act as they are now. Unthinking and unyielding.

The thing is with these people, they've set their mind to one thing and are refusing to take advice or reach a compromise. When they heard Saddam was caught, they all gripped their guns and waited for their excuse to be more dangerous.
Being honest, now. If we simply left that country, completely alone, right now - RIGHT NOW. Do you think they'd actually stop? What would the compromise be? Would there be one?

Actually, I don't think we were discussing the relationship between his worth as a human and others, i.e. Saddam <=> Other humans, rather, just the general conception of what it means to kill one person or a thousand people. Either that, or I've just missed the whole point of this sub-discussion a long time ago...

Bottom line is, I don't think that any person is more worth than a thousand. However, when saying "there's no difference between killing and killing" I do not mean that it doesn't matter how many people you kill, rather, that there's a very thin line between the magnitude of the crime committed. I'm not thinking numbers here, although it might appear that I do, but like I said, I was only thinking about the way of killing. However, you are right in the sense that it's rather hard to overlook a Hitler/decapitated child scenario. ;)

I think we're missing the point. Few (if any) of the insurgents are fighting in Saddam's name. All they want is to get rid of the Americans as well as the supremacy of whichever subsect they represent.

Actually, there is no difference between killing and killing.
Saying that there is makes as much sense as saying theres a difference between milk and milk.

It's like comparing a category to a category. Sure there are subcategories that are different to one another, but we're not comparing those, we're comparing the category...


To itself.

How about comparing insects to insects? :p

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" - Mahatma Gandhi

I guess in this case it all boils down to what you personally believe since there is really nothing we can do now. I am still in debate if this "universal justice" revenge mentality was absolutely necessary even in this extreme case.

Well, on second thought I was taking the ideas of morality in the saying a little extreme. On second glance I can see the betterness in compensating for the loss of an eye through materials rather than giving up an eye of yours yourself. I think if it were accidental than it is up to the injured to decide whether there should be payment or not. I don't know why, it just feels right.

I wish I could find his execution video with subtitles.

^ I think that's revolting. But I don't get why people want to see that video anyway.

- Rexy

A snuff film with a famous star. Who wouldn't want to see that?

In western culture, only those with serious issues.

I'm going to be perfectly honest with you why I watched that video - It's because something inside me was sure he wasn't dead - I knew logically that he must be, but it was just this feeling I had. I watched it to get rid of my strange suspicions, and that's all.

Then again, Saddam did have 'copies'... but enough with conspiricy theories :p

I don't understand why it's so widespread. On the day of his execution, pretty much every film on the YouTube front page was either a mock-up of his execution or the actual video of the events.

I appriciate your reply, if anyone else watched it, why did you? I want to know simply out of curiosity; I personally don't see what anyone would get out of a movie of someone being killed.

That made me laugh. :P +5 points

- Rexy

I watched it inadvertantly several goddamn times. News stations showed the death squad lynching in prime time repeatedly and without warning. Only in America is soft core pornography considered more offensive than a goddamn snuff film.

My dad downloaded a video of it. lol... Glad it happened, but now we'll probrably get bombed while we're sleeping. -_-

Your Dad downloaded a video of if?

Christ, what an example.

Hey I didn’t even state my opinion I was just stating a fact. Because Mitsur said, “So, it's happened. Saddam got hanged. Not exactly the best way to die.”

Hm, I wondered why myself, why. But I guess it wouldn't be up long before someone shut it down. He is very... against those kind of things. Like Censorship and whatnot.

To be honest, I really don't know what to think about this whole thing. I mean, on the one side, we've gotten rid of, and made an example of a dictator that was responsible for killing thousands of people. But on the other hand, we have glorified him in his nation, and stooped down to his level. So, I really don't know.

If anything, I think we should have kept him in a prison of some sort, in a tiny room where no one would be able to speak to him, and let him live out his days in complete and utter isolation. At least then, he just might have thought about what he had done, and it would surely be much more psychologically painful to deal with being confined in a small room for years, than being hung quickly and knowing that relief from the pain you are feeling at the moment is right around the corner.

But isn't that against human rights... The Geneva convention [I think it's called anyway]?

- Rexy

I don't think so, I mean, in prison they put people in soletary all the time, to my knowledge.

They never put people in solitary confinement in prisons. Ever.

It would send a person crazy to be in solitary confinement. I think you've been watching to many old war movies.

More about the Geneva Conventions.

- Rexy

We make rules for war. To the human race, it's just another game.

I actually was thinking about that, and kind of thought that we should have done that instead.

(I am having thoughts of Saddam standing in front of some guy named Earl.)

That would be the point :p.

If it doesn't exist, then when they caught him, they should not have released it to the public, taken him somewhere, and imprisoned him in that way. That way, no one would know about it, so no one would be able to stop it, despite what laws an acts have been passed.

David Hicks has been in solitary confinement in Guantanamo since March and will be for the forseeable future.