1
   

DOES DEATH PENALTY SATISFY JUSTICE FOR SADDAM ?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Nov, 2006 04:21 pm
OSDavid, On a personal level, I agree with most of your opinion on this topic. However, it would seem to me that trying to include other cultures and religions in the mix can only make the primary question somewhat more confusing. I think in the final analysis, it's a matter of individual preference. We have seen that from the victims of the WTC.
0 Replies
 
2PacksAday
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Nov, 2006 04:24 pm
Hmm, I have no problem with Saddam receiving a "Mussolini style" treatment, does that make me psycologically damaged as well?

Before anyone answers that, keep in mind that Missourian and barbarian are one in the same....synonymous, if you prefer them big type words....so I simply don't know no better.

Hang em' high.


But, I do feel that those who put him in power should be held to the same standard....and yes, I know who put him there.
0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Nov, 2006 05:08 pm
OmSigDAVID wrote:
The purpose of this thread is to consider
the morality of revenge,

with specific particularity to the victims of Saddam.

There is no morality in revenge.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Nov, 2006 05:18 pm
Agree with Sturgis on that point. Your title references "justice." Do you seek justice, or revenge?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Nov, 2006 05:26 pm
Sturgis, Be careful about universalinzing what you call "morality." There is no standard definition that applies to all cultures and religions.
0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Nov, 2006 05:37 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Sturgis, Be careful about universalinzing what you call "morality." There is no standard definition that applies to all cultures and religions.
I was speaking for myself. If you look at my comment as it applies to what OmSigDavid wrote, you will understand what it is that I am saying.

I would add to this but am well aware that you will find a way to skew even this much to match up with your perverse desires.

Honestly, why do you insist on being so negative all the time, CI?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Nov, 2006 05:59 pm
This is what I saw:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
The purpose of this thread is to consider
the morality of revenge,
with specific particularity to the victims of Saddam.


There is no morality in revenge.

_________________

I responded with: Sturgis, Be careful about universalinzing what you call "morality." There is no standard definition that applies to all cultures and religions.

I thought my response was a direct response to your post. Sorry, if I misunderstood.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Nov, 2006 06:19 pm
Sturgis wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
The purpose of this thread is to consider
the morality of revenge,

with specific particularity to the victims of Saddam.

There is no morality in revenge.

When I wrote of considering the morality of revenge,
by that I meant considering n discussing whether revenge is morally right or morally rong, Sturgis.

There r differing points of vu.
For instance, the Bible speaks of taking " an eye for an eye "
and it later speaks of forgiveness.
These contrasting possibilities involve morality.
David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Nov, 2006 06:32 pm
DrewDad wrote:
Agree with Sturgis on that point.

Your title references "justice."

Do you seek justice, or revenge?

I SEEK to discuss and consider these issues; nothing more.
The Iraqians will do whatever thay decide to DO.

I am a native born American of English ancestry,
with no relation whatsoever to Iraq,
nor to any of Saddam 's victims, other than sympathy n good will.

It seems to me,
that to a large extent revenge n justice r co-extensive.
I will admit that if a victim 's revenge unreasonably exceeds
the original offense, then that is not just.

In Saddam 's case,
in that he has sadisticly and publicly murdered
so many 1000s of people, including little children
who had nothing to do with any offense against him,
it is difficult to imagine how one cud exceed the limit
of what is just n fair handling of him.


However, I invite u to define the difference
between justice and revenge, as u see it.
David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Nov, 2006 06:38 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
OSDavid, On a personal level, I agree with most of your opinion on this topic. However, it would seem to me that trying to include other cultures and religions in the mix can only make the primary question somewhat more confusing.

I think in the final analysis, it's a matter of individual preference.
We have seen that from the victims of the WTC
.

This is very true; it seems to be human nature
that folks have contrasting, diverse points of vu.
David
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Nov, 2006 07:10 pm
REVENGE IS SELF-DESTRUCTIVE.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Nov, 2006 07:47 pm
echi wrote:
REVENGE IS SELF-DESTRUCTIVE.

Will u elucidate ?

Tell us how this is so ?
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Nov, 2006 07:48 pm
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
1000s of Iraqians


I guess we should consider what the Iraqians really want....
It is an Iraqian court.
I guess that thay will do whatever thay decide to DO.
My thread seeks to consider the definitions of fairness n justice
as thay apply to the victims of Saddam.

Cycloptichorn

ps. you are mentally disturbed, friend.
P.S.: I deny that I am disturbed,
and I deny that I am your friend.


Saddam also denied that he was guilty.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Nov, 2006 07:49 pm
so did OJ and Peterson.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Nov, 2006 07:52 pm
I find it interesting
that when I raised the issue of possibly
exposing Saddam to some relatively mild offenses against his dignity
( of the Iraqians letting his victims, or their families, kick him in the behind )
that fiercely emotional and acrimonious denunciation was forthcoming,
directed against ME for even bringing it up at all.

( I suspect that this vilification came from politically correct types. )




Thru out history, it has been common for the murderer
of only one man to be hanged or otherwise killed, in reprisal.
That evens the score for the first man that he killed,
but since the offender can only be killed ONCE,
he gets away with NO PENALTY for any other murders that he committed.

I am NOT suggesting
that America decide nor execute Saddam 's penalty.

The Iraqians will take care of that,
but I mean to offer the point of vu
that if thay opt to allow the victims some degree of emotional satisfaction
by letting them humiliate Saddam by kicking him in the rear,
that this may add to the emotional satisfaction of the victims' lives,
and that this wud be a fair way to punish Saddam.

For instance,
I read of several merchants whom Saddam 's government
sentenced to a year in jail, plus having their right hands cut off
at the end of that time; the sentences were executed upon them.

What is rong with the Iraqians letting however many of them
wish to follow Saddam to the gallows kicking him in the behind,
for their emotional relief ? I don 't believe that wud be cruel,
the way Saddam himself was cruel n sadistic.
The victims have to live the rest of their lives without their right hands !
Which punishment is worse ?

If I wanted to suggest cruelty,
then I 'd bring up such things as the Taliban 's practice
of flaying people and burying them alive ( that must STING ).
I did not recommend THAT.

In contemplation of the vast numbers of murders n mutilations,
with all of the physical pain and emotional pain that Saddam maliciously inflicted ,
it seems to me that if his victims
chose to ADD SOME BRIEF EXPOSURE TO RIDICULE to
Saddam 's hanging, that wud be within reason,
and not inordinately severe.

I re-iterate that by hanging,
the score is evened for only the first man that Saddam murdered.
He gets away with every other crime, however harsh, that he committed.


Insofar as I am politically incorrect in this, I take pride.


Please: don 't offer any further unsolicited
psychological diagnoses.
We 've covered that already; enuf is enuf.

The topic is what is morally right or rong.
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Nov, 2006 07:56 pm
OmSigDAVID wrote:
echi wrote:
REVENGE IS SELF-DESTRUCTIVE.

Will u elucidate ?

Tell us how this is so ?


You're a very smart person, David.
If you can't find the truth in that sentence, it can only be because you don't want to.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Nov, 2006 08:01 pm
What you are suggesting is not only morally wrong, but it is rather immature given the manner in which it is presented.

Also, why should Americans, or any other nation other than Iraq be concerned with the details of what is done. I guess all the hoopla takes away from the murder of Iraqis by the American government. Should GW also receive a kick in the posterior?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Nov, 2006 08:23 pm
echi wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
echi wrote:
REVENGE IS SELF-DESTRUCTIVE.

Will u elucidate ?

Tell us how this is so ?


You're a very smart person, David.
If you can't find the truth in that sentence, it can only be because you don't want to.

I did not say that " I can 't find the truth in that sentence ";
however, if I endeavor to do so,
I might reach many conclusions that u did not mean.
Even if I were so fortunate as to identify, in my mind,
precisely what YOU have in mind,
what about everyone else who reads your post ?
Is it best that everyone merely take his best guess
at what u meant, rather than have u TELL us ?

I did not declare that u r rong.

I merely extended to u
the opportunity to tell us what YOU have in mind,
IF U WANT TO.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Nov, 2006 09:09 pm
echi wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
echi wrote:
REVENGE IS SELF-DESTRUCTIVE.

Will u elucidate ?

Tell us how this is so ?


You're a very smart person, David.
If you can't find the truth in that sentence,
it can only be because you don't want to.

On another thread, some time ago,
I posted in regard to an incident several decades ago
wherein a fellow was acquitted of homicide by a jury.

He had tracked down and stabbed the decedent to death,
because his mother had identified the decedent
as having mugged her. I agreed with the acquittal.
I still do. It seemed to me the honorable thing to do,
tho it was unlawful to do that.

I then offered the opinion
that even if it cost me my life to avenge such an offense,
if that had ever happened to MY mother,
death wud be worth it; it wud be death with honor;
i.e., even if revenge IS self-destructive,
that does not necessarily negate the merit of so doing.

Many men have volunteered to fight for America in wartime,
and gotten killed as a result ( which is very self-destructive ).
Some of them had previously written home
that if thay did get killed, it wud be worth it.


Anyway, I still hope to know your definition
of revenge being self-destructive, if u care to enlighten us.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Nov, 2006 09:29 pm
The idea introduced by OSDavid on revenge when considered from the victims perspective can get muddled when so many variables are introduced. when one goes to war as a soldier, and kills another soldier or some innocent civilians in his defense to protect himself and his fellow soldiers, all kinds of moral and humanity issues become more complex with no real answers. To continue arguing the point that executing a violent criminal is self-destructive seems somewhat disingenuous in my mind.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 02/04/2023 at 05:28:47