2 edits
Originally posted by SuzianneOf course they would want to rush the execution, most of the present government of Iraq were exiled under Saddam.
I do believe it is the Iraqi government who was rushing his execution along. The US was merely holding him, and basically the trial and the subsequent execution was all the Iraqis' show.
It was upto the occupying nations to ensure he received a fair trial. But they've made a mess of the trial like everything else they have done in Iraq since the occupation.
Still- One less evil bstard on the planet...............
1 edit
Originally posted by millermanSorry, but Hello Kitty just creeps me out. 😕
Of course they would want to rush the execution, most of the present government of Iraq we're exiled under Saddam.
It was upto the occupying nations to ensure he received a fair trial. But they've made a mess of the trial like everything else they have done in Iraq since the occupation.
Still- One less evil bstard on the planet...............
Edit: or whatever that avatar is... hehe
Originally posted by Remora91a) he didn't design that government, the american gov did.
The barbaric government he designed is now executing him. What goes around comes around.
b) he did have it coming, which doesn't change the fact that killing a human being is wrong. it's wrong when saddam does it, it's just as wrong when his executioner does it. if there was any logic to it, by induction the executioner should be killed too, then his executioner, then his etc. -the reason why that sounds insane is that even the first step of induction is wrong. killing a killer does nothing else than gives in to our natural hunger for revenge, and creates a new killer.
c) of course, the execution of saddam has nothing to do with what he's done, instead it's a symbolic display of power, exactly the same as if his head would've been cut off and put on a spike in front of the white house. barbaric.
Originally posted by wormwoodFirst of all, yes, he did have it coming, which does change the "fact" that killing a human being is wrong. Not all killing is wrong, but all murdering is wrong. Saddam murdered people, was convicted for it and killed (not murdered) by an executioner who was carrying out a society mandated killing. So, the murder was wrong, but the killing was right.
b) he did have it coming, which doesn't change the fact that killing a human being is wrong. it's wrong when saddam does it, it's just as wrong when his executioner does it. if there was any logic to it, by induction the executioner should be killed too, then his executioner, then his etc. -the reason why that sounds insane is that even the first ste ...[text shortened]... oes nothing else than gives in to our natural hunger for revenge, and creates a new killer.
And killing the murderer hopefully serves as a deterrent to the next murderer, as well as rendering justice, not only to society, but to the families of the murderer's victims...
2 edits
Originally posted by Suziannewhy is murdering wrong, why do we punish for it? -because we think life is the most precious thing we possess, and that taking it is the worst thing that can be done to a human. calling something murder and something else killing is just a semantic trick to rationalize further killing.
First of all, yes, he did have it coming, which does change the "fact" that killing a human being is wrong. Not all killing is wrong, but all murdering is wrong. Saddam murdered people, was convicted for it and killed (not murdered) by an executioner who was carrying out a society mandated killing. So, the murder was wrong, but the killing ...[text shortened]... l as rendering justice, not only to society, but to the families of the murderer's victims...
giving harsher punishments have been shown not to have an effect. it does not deter from committing crimes.
justifying a killing by how the victim's family gets revenge is just ridiculous. what about the killer's family? don't they 'deserve' to get their revenge also? that's just stupid. killing the killer doesn't bring anyone back, it doesn't change anything for the victim's family. the only thing it does is satisfy bloodlust, which is as low as a human can go.
Originally posted by wormwoodMost of our concepts of right and wrong come from the bible and other sacred texts, which have all suffered mightily through not only misinterpretation, but also through translation errors. If I am not mistaken, the original Hebrew word used in the Ten Commandments 'Thou Shalt not Kill' was the Hebrew for murder, not kill, indicating that yes, there are some killings that are justified, such as in combat against a national adversary, or to protect oneself, but murder is always wrong, since it involves killing for greed, envy, jealousy... i.e. a personal benefit to the murderer.
why is murdering wrong, why do we punish for it? -because we think life is the most precious thing we possess, and that taking it is the worst thing that can be done to a human. calling something murder and something else killing is just a semantic trick to rationalize further killing.
There are semantics, and then there is precise language. One does not substitute for the other. When you do, then that is semantics. Calling murder killing hides the fact that not all killing is murder, and in civilized society, we punish one, but not the other.
Originally posted by SuzianneKill, murder. Same thing. Personal benefit, national benefit, religious benefit. Voices in your head. They all merge into one. You can justify anything if it suits you. You can justify 9/11. You can justify the holocaust.
.. there are some killings that are justified, such as in combat against a national adversary, or to protect oneself, but murder is always wrong, since it involves killing for greed, envy, jealousy... i.e. a personal benefit to the murderer.
Murder = kill = fundamentally wrong. In executing Saddam, the World just sinks further down to his level.
Originally posted by SuzianneActually Suzie, I think most of our knowledge of right and wrong comes from our life experience, not sacred words. But one thing I do think is that killing Saddam was wrong because, yes I'm not sorry or saddamed that he is gone, but that he should have spent the rest of his life in misery for what he did. That's more painful than execution. To give him nothing but solitude and loneliness like he gave so many wives who lost their loved ones... that's pain! Bstd should have lived to endure it!
Most of our concepts of right and wrong come from the bible and other sacred texts, which have all suffered mightily through not only misinterpretation, but also through translation errors. If I am not mistaken, the original Hebrew word used in the Ten Commandments 'Thou Shalt not Kill' was the Hebrew for murder, not kill, indicating that yes, there are so ...[text shortened]... ct that not all killing is murder, and in civilized society, we punish one, but not the other.
Originally posted by GatecrasherIf you can not distinguish between murder and killing as most legal systems do and as most languages do, then it is impossible to discuss rationally the morality of either. You can justify anything if you blur obvious distinctions and take Alice in Wonderland's caterpillar's view of the meaning of words. Some taking of life is justified. The occasions when it is justified can be the subject of different and supportable opinion.
Kill, murder. Same thing. Personal benefit, national benefit, religious benefit. Voices in your head. They all merge into one. You can justify anything if it suits you. You can justify 9/11. You can justify the holocaust.
Murder = kill = fundamentally wrong. In executing Saddam, the World just sinks further down to his level.
Originally posted by jebrydzaginAh so.
If you can not distinguish between murder and killing as most legal systems do and as most languages do, then it is impossible to discuss rationally the morality of either. You can justify anything if you blur obvious distinctions and take Alice in Wonderland's caterpillar's view of the meaning of words. Some taking of life is justified. The occasions when it is justified can be the subject of different and supportable opinion.
But what is the difference between murder and killing?
Isn't killing just state-funded murder?
So, it's wrong to kill your neighbour with a knife, but it's alright to kill someone else's neighbour with a B52 bomber?
And so if a government decides that killing a neighbour with a knife is alright, then suddenly it isn't murder any more?
There's a legal difference between murder and killing, morally, however, they are both just the same.
1 edit
Originally posted by jebrydzaginIf you're going to push the morality of the situation, then please don't warp it to fit amoral beliefs. Killing is morally wrong for all other reasons save self defence (the 'self' being that which includes the set of family members etc.). Killing in the name of justice is wrong, killing in the name of revenge is wong, killing in the name of any opinion other than the preservation of the self is wrong. Anyone that attempts to offer other reasons for justification in regards to killing is not morally right. Opinionably right; given their own beliefs and personal experiences perhaps, but not morally right. And fortunately opinion on the death penalty is still varied.
If you can not distinguish between murder and killing as most legal systems do and as most languages do, then it is impossible to discuss rationally the morality of either. You can justify anything if you blur obvious distinctions and take Alice in Wonderland's caterpillar's view of the meaning of words. Some taking of life is justified. The occasions when it is justified can be the subject of different and supportable opinion.
This was found by a friend of mine on the World Of Warcraft General forums. For those of you familiar with the TV show "The Fresh Prince of Bel Air", you will appreciate it most.
NOW THIS IS A STORY ALL ABOUT HOW
IRAQ GOT FLIPPED TURNED UPSIDE DOWN
AND I'D LIKE TO TAKE A MINUTE SO JUST SIT TIGHT
I'LL TELL YOU HOW I GOT HANGED AT 10 PM JUST LAST NIGHT.
IN THE BLEAK IRAQI DESERT I WAS BORN AND RAISED
STARTIN' CONFLICTS IS HOW I SPENT MOST OF MY DAYS
INVADIN', DICATIN', KILLIN' PEOPLE ALL COOL
AND SHOOTIN' SON-IN-LAWS RIGHT OUTSIDE OF THEIR SCHOOLS
WHEN GEORGE W. BUSH THOUGHT I WAS UP TO NO GOOD
AND STARTED MAKIN' TROUBLE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD
SO I HID IN MY HOLE UNTIL THEY FOUND ME AND SAID
"PUT YOUR HANDS IN THE AIR OR WE'LL SHOOT YOUR ASS DEAD."
THEY WHISTLED FOR A JUDGE AND WHEN HE CAME NEAR
THEY THREW ME IN A CELL AND HE SAID I WAS A #!!!!
THEY KEPT ME IN PRISON, I DIDN'T GET A FREE PASS
AND SOON I WAS ON TRIAL FOR KILLING PEOPLE WITH GAS.
THEY. SAID. I HAD DISPERSED BIOWEAPONS EVERYWHERE
AS I YELLED TO THE KURDS "YO HOMES, HOW 'BOUT THAT AIR?"
I LOOKED AT MY NOOSE, AND IT WAS EASY TO TELL
I'D SOON BE FLYIN' FIRST CLASS, DIRECTLY DOWN INTO HELL.