View Full Version : Sensational news!
V.VELDANEN
11-06-2006, 07:14 AM
Simple, post news that attracts your attention and fancy!
For Today...
Saddam to hang
"BAGHDAD: A visibly shaken Saddam Hussein was found guilty of crimes against humanity yesterday and sentenced to hang at a lightning session of the US-sponsored court that has been trying him in the Iraqi capital for the past year.
Two other senior aides, including his half-brother Barzan al-Tikriti, will also hang if their automatic appeals fail. His former vice-president was sentenced to life in prison and three minor Baath party officials received long jail sentences.
Shortly after the verdict was read in a heavily-fortified courtroom here, clashes broke out between gunmen and US and Iraqi troops in two Sunni Muslim neighbourhoods of the capital.
By contrast Shi'ites, the majority now dominating Iraq, swarmed into the streets, yelling in joy that the secular Sunni Arab who oppressed them for three decades is now likely to be executed.
COURTROOM DRAMA: Abdul Rahman addressing Saddam after sentencing him and Barzan (inset, left) to death. Clark (inset, right) listening to the proceedings via translation before he was ejected from the courtroom. — APpix
The reactions underscored the deep sectarian divisions in Iraq more than three years after the US-led invasion.
Saddam's counsel said the verdict was timed to help President George W. Bush's Republican congressional elections, and had urged a delay to prevent the sentence triggering bloodshed “for generations to come”.
The US ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, said “closing the book on Saddam and his regime” was a chance for Iraqis to unite. The court was set up by US-occupying officials who resisted calls for an international tribunal, saying Iraqis should run it.
However, the descent into sectarian violence has dented hopes that the trial would be a force for unity.
“This is the least Saddam deserved,” said Ali al-Dabbagh, spokesman for the Shi'ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.
At first the 69-year-old ousted president, who has defiantly justified killing and torturing Shi'ite opponents, refused to stand before the judge. Eventually he rose shakily to his feet in the dock to hear the verdict and sentence read out.
As chief judge Raouf Abdul Rahman spoke, Saddam, hands clenched behind his back, almost succeeded in drowning him out, yelling the Muslim battle cry of “Allahu Akbar!” (God is Great) and “Long Live Iraq!”.
“The court has decided to sentence Saddam Hussein al-Majid to be hanged until he is dead for crimes against humanity,” the judge said, ignoring a plea made by Saddam earlier in the trial that he should face a military firing squad, not the noose.
After more than a year of proceedings in the case, which concerns the deaths of more than 148 Shi'ite men from the town of Dujail, there was little left to be said. Like his co-accused, Saddam was led away by guards after hearing his sentence.
After just 45 minutes, Abdul Rahman wound up proceedings.
Saddam's defence team, which had dismissed the court as a sham, called the verdict a “mockery of justice”.
Maliki had called for calm in rejoicing but also said Saddam should get “what he deserves”.
Maliki's government has been criticised for interfering in the case – notably by the first chief judge, who quit.
Abdul Rahman's first act in court yesterday was to eject former US attorney-general Ramsey Clark after the veteran legal campaigner sent him a note describing the trial as a “mockery of justice”.
The Iraqi High Tribunal also handed down death sentences to Awad Hamed al-Bander, former chief judge in Saddam's Revolutionary Court, and to Saddam's half-brother and former intelligence chief, Barzan. Former Iraqi vice-president Taha Yassin Ramadan was sentenced to life in prison.
The fourth minor Baath party official from Dujail was acquitted at the prosecutor's request for lack of evidence.
The charges stemmed from retaliations against hundreds of people from Dujail after an assassination attempt against Saddam in the town in 1982.
Malcolm Smart of the human rights watchdog Amnesty International said: “We don't consider it was a fair process.” – Reuters"
badash
11-06-2006, 09:03 AM
Hmmmm... Storm into a country and try to choke it with democracy forcing many soldiers to lose their lives on behalf of the most abused word in the American vocabulary "Freedom"
Troops and civilians have been killed as well as freedom fighters and other small units.
And finally the man that kept this insane country together is going to hang for being tough on a VERY tough nation.
There is no glory in the death of a man who has nothing anymore... all that's left is heartbreak and the tears of all that have lost their lovers, friends and family for a goal that is still unreached.
I think its disgusting that people would be glad in this news... another victim of war but it seems that even now you are calling for more blood to spill.
Katzyn
11-06-2006, 10:31 AM
He caused the death of many, many innocents, as well. That's why many people rejoice. They feel he's finally getting some sort of punishment for his bad deeds.
Named
11-06-2006, 10:32 AM
In last day of Israeli brutal agression Israel dropped 1 million cluster bombs all around Lebanon.
Shipped from USA.
Deadly bombs still haunt Lebanese
Israeli cluster bombs are still killing or injuring three to four civilians a day, a third of them children.
By Yara Bayoumy - HALTA, Lebanon
Eleven-year-old Ramy Shibleh was gathering pine cones outside this small southern Lebanese town, hoping to make some money to buy toys ahead of the Muslim Eid al-Fitr holiday.
His father, Ali Shibleh, was waiting at home for Ramy and his brother Khodor, 13. He needed them to help him pick olives.
"Suddenly I heard an explosion," Shibleh said, choking on tears. "I heard Khodor screaming 'Ramy!', I yelled back at him 'Son, where is Ramy?' He said, 'Father, Ramy died.' I told him 'Khodor you are joking', he said, 'No, Ramy is dead."
The brothers were heading home when the wheel of their cart jammed against what they thought was a rock.
Ramy bent down, picked up the object and as he raised his arm to throw it out of the way, it exploded, tearing off his right arm and the back of his head. He died instantly.
His brother Khodor was hit by shrapnel in the hip and is still in hospital.
Ramy's death added to a toll still rising after Israel's monthlong war against Hezbollah guerrillas in southern Lebanon. The object he picked up was a cluster bomblet -- one of hundreds of thousands dropped by Israel on the region before an August 14 ceasefire.
During the war, nearly 1,200 people in Lebanon, mostly civilians, and 157 Israelis, mostly soldiers, were killed. And lives are still being lost.
Between August 14 and October 8, around 20 people were killed in southern Lebanon by cluster munitions. Land mine activists said last month that cluster bombs are still killing or injuring three to four civilians a day, a third of them children.
Stupid, crazy Jews ;)
He caused the death of many, many innocents, as well. That's why many people rejoice. They feel he's finally getting some sort of punishment for his bad deeds.
Death isn't a punishment, it can never be punishment, for the person being executing can hardly appreciate the lesson. It's plainly and simply revenge.
Revenge is fueled by anger, serves no purpose, and teaches a horrible lesson.
badash
11-06-2006, 10:53 AM
Death isn't a punishment, it can never be punishment, for the person being executing can hardly appreciate the lesson. It's plainly and simply revenge.
Revenge is fueled by anger, serves no purpose, and teaches a horrible lesson.
I'm not really a fan of your work Named but you are spot on there my man.
V.VELDANEN
11-06-2006, 11:05 AM
Perhaps the title should be changed? 'Sensational' sounds almost too glamourous.
i_feel_tiredsleepy
11-06-2006, 11:09 AM
Ug the entire trial was a sham, the judge himself expressed that saddam hussein should die long before the end of the trial, moreover all the people involved in the trial have been appointed by the president of iraq who is practically a puppet of the USA. Also, the presidents of Iraq and USA both compremised justice by giving their opinion of how the trial should end. As for the death sentence, if it has to be a death sentence why hanging? Why don't we just get a guy with big hands to strangle him to death because its just as brutal; hanging is an outdated inhumane way to execute prisoners (as if execution can ever be humane) that should be abolished. The USA's execution policies are absurd, they are the only first world country that executes prisoners and the US won't sign the UN declaration of human rights because they want to reserve their right to kill the handicapped and children, it sickens me. Finally, people love to pass judgement on the few thousands killed by saddam, but the USA is responsible for some of the biggest mass murders in history, such as the dropping of the nuclear bombs on Japan and the mass slaughter of civilians in Vietnam. This being the reason why the USA won't join the world court because many former US leaders would be found guilty of war crimes.
uchiha_melody
11-06-2006, 12:12 PM
In last day of Israeli brutal agression Israel dropped 1 million cluster bombs all around Lebanon.
Shipped from USA.
Deadly bombs still haunt Lebanese
Israeli cluster bombs are still killing or injuring three to four civilians a day, a third of them children.
By Yara Bayoumy - HALTA, Lebanon
Eleven-year-old Ramy Shibleh was gathering pine cones outside this small southern Lebanese town, hoping to make some money to buy toys ahead of the Muslim Eid al-Fitr holiday.
His father, Ali Shibleh, was waiting at home for Ramy and his brother Khodor, 13. He needed them to help him pick olives.
"Suddenly I heard an explosion," Shibleh said, choking on tears. "I heard Khodor screaming 'Ramy!', I yelled back at him 'Son, where is Ramy?' He said, 'Father, Ramy died.' I told him 'Khodor you are joking', he said, 'No, Ramy is dead."
The brothers were heading home when the wheel of their cart jammed against what they thought was a rock.
Ramy bent down, picked up the object and as he raised his arm to throw it out of the way, it exploded, tearing off his right arm and the back of his head. He died instantly.
His brother Khodor was hit by shrapnel in the hip and is still in hospital.
Ramy's death added to a toll still rising after Israel's monthlong war against Hezbollah guerrillas in southern Lebanon. The object he picked up was a cluster bomblet -- one of hundreds of thousands dropped by Israel on the region before an August 14 ceasefire.
During the war, nearly 1,200 people in Lebanon, mostly civilians, and 157 Israelis, mostly soldiers, were killed. And lives are still being lost.
Between August 14 and October 8, around 20 people were killed in southern Lebanon by cluster munitions. Land mine activists said last month that cluster bombs are still killing or injuring three to four civilians a day, a third of them children.
Stupid, crazy Jews ;)
Death isn't a punishment, it can never be punishment, for the person being executing can hardly appreciate the lesson. It's plainly and simply revenge.
Revenge is fueled by anger, serves no purpose, and teaches a horrible lesson.
that war was propaganda!!!X________________X grrrr.....see see American weapons AGAIN!! my family was all like "TYPICAL ISRAEL!"
my granddad left the tele 24 hours on the BBC....TTWTT
that war was upsetting i esp felt a punch in my tummy when the BBC news aired this thing where the Israeli people where making bombs and then the Israeli kids where writing CRUEL mean letters to the Lebanese kids....savages....i hate them...don't care when people call me ignorant...i still hate bush and Israel! they should perish .....
DBZWarrior6582
11-06-2006, 01:04 PM
ok first off so what if the bombs came from america, the Isrealies were the ones who used them to kill the lebanese. I am not a fan of isreal, really i could care less about isreal. All I really care about is that if no one attacks my country I'm good. If some one decides to attack my country then I want to see them get what they deserve a swift decisive shot to the head with a high powered sniper rifle.
anyway, I am so excited they decided to hang Sadam, I can only hope the televise it so that we can watch the man die for all the innocent peole he killed because he just didn't like them or think they deserved to live. the man is a monster and should die by haning but let him choke to death not have his neck snap, i want him to suffer so i can enjoy the look on his face.
on I'm done, thats my sadistic rant for the day.
Named
11-06-2006, 01:54 PM
If you desire suffering, I employ no restraint in saying you are no different to who you wish suffering upon.
I do not wish to hurt ANYONE. I would certainly kill to defend myself, but I would not inflict pain.
Saddam did a horrible thing. Point being? It was in the past. Killing him doesn't rectify an old evil it simply creates a new one - people watching a man die. That is disgusting. I'm sorry to say something with such conviction, I am not judging you as an individual, I am instead condemning just the opinion you espoused which is shared by many people.
Death is not a PUNISHMENT, it is nothing more than revenge. Revenge is fueled by the same kind of hatred which caused Saddam, or any figure in his position, to do what he did.
What hope do we have if we follow example of the men we execute? How righteous can we call ourselves?
It proves nothing more than our own ignorance.
Anyway, in response to what you said first. If you leave a gun in a playground and another child is shot, who do you blame? It may be protested that Israel or any nation cannot be likened to a child, but fucking yes they can, when their attitudes are governed by a different albeit equally dangerous and infantile irrationality.
America keeps on giving these nations guns and it wonders why the finger points to it when people die. Enabling destruction is being responsible for destruction.
Yuber
11-06-2006, 02:54 PM
Agreed, not to mention that the US uses torture(waterboarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding) to get information from people they detain. Disgusting.
Yeah, Saddam is a piece of shit, but killing him isn't going to bring back any lives, and will most likely just piss off the Iraqis even more.
ScareCrow
11-06-2006, 03:03 PM
Death isn't a punishment, it can never be punishment, for the person being executing can hardly appreciate the lesson. It's plainly and simply revenge.
Revenge is fueled by anger, serves no purpose, and teaches a horrible lesson.
I agree with Named. Death is too quick and painless for the likes of Saddam. He got lucky. I would rather him rot in jail till death. Being caged is more fit of punishment.
Chidongan
11-07-2006, 03:03 PM
i think instead of giving him the death sentance, we should tie him up in a chair, and show him an immense amount of uncut, unedited shickshee.
or just take turns but raping him. ^^
Named
11-07-2006, 03:24 PM
Why hurt him at all?
Chidongan
11-07-2006, 03:30 PM
Why hurt him at all?
i dunno. but raping is better than the death sentance. atleast he'll learn his lesson then. ^^
Zangrief FTW!!
Named
11-07-2006, 04:09 PM
I don't think Torture is much better of an educator than Death. There is no lesson learnt by them; they're just vessels for revenge.
I will never agree with revenge.
Chidongan
11-07-2006, 04:32 PM
thats true. but most people mask revenge with lessons. what lesson are they learning by killing a world leader (is he a world leader, not sure)?
it will just fuel more anger. and start more wars and such. it's pointless.
superkhanh0
11-07-2006, 04:43 PM
i think we sud kill him :D
peope who say kill him is only for revenge and crap, maybe cuz u dun have family who died in these events, people have diff opinions in this. i say kill him :D
azn style chop his head off :D
Named
11-07-2006, 04:46 PM
Or perhaps people just understand how dangerous and destructive revenge is?
What does killing him prove? Nothing more than that we can be just as vicious as the man we're executing. What a brilliant lesson that teaches, aye? If you don't like someone, just do as he does to get rid of him!
No, revenge is an action of hatred. Hatred kills people. I won't EVER agree with it.
I've had FAMILY members die before, superkhan. There were moments where I could have blamed someone and sought revenge, but I stuck to my moral principles, because I understand how devestating revenge is. Perhaps you shouldn't assume I can't relate personally to having lost something. We've all lost people or possessions which meant a lot to us.
we kill Hussian because he's gonna make more threats to the U.S just like he did in his stupid video tapes , and he's gonna provoke more terrorists to do bad stuff to the U.S , this is mainly Hussian's fault along with Bush's because he left the troops in Iraq , scaring the citizens and making suicide bombers to bomb them , they obviously dont like the troops in there cities
Named
11-07-2006, 05:27 PM
Killing Saddam makes him a martyr. The people who support him still exist. If he's killed, they'll be enraged. Perhaps if he was given a fair trial, they could be less angered, but he wasn't. The democratic court was blatantly violated on several occassions. It's a mockery to justice and to the reason Bush said he went into the country in the first place! For Democracy! Now they shit all over Democratic values in the name of petty revenge!
Violent actions do not quell terrorism - they justify it. They encourage it. These terrorist organisations don't need to run recruitment drives at all.
America has succeeded in doing that for them at every turn of action. Free advertisement for their causes.
Well , It will be awesome if they had a trail for Hussian and then convict of them something degree murder of something like that , this is why Bush shouldn't be Prez , maybe if they offer the citizens of Iraq some pice of evidence about the Terrorism that he did , maybe..maybe some "soon to be-suicide bombers" will understand , further more , Bush should've taken the troops out of Iraq
Named
11-07-2006, 05:38 PM
Is it too hopeful to think, based on Bush's actions, another like he won't be elected?
This assumes, of course, that people can learn from their mistakes.
Well , It will be awesome if they had a trail for Hussian and then convict of them something degree murder of something like that , this is why Bush shouldn't be Prez , maybe if they offer the citizens of Iraq some pice of evidence about the Terrorism that he did , maybe..maybe some "soon to be-suicide bombers" will understand , further more , Bush should've taken the troops out of Iraq
Evidence of the terrorism? Are you kidding me?
Obviously people in his own country know what he did..they suffered through his genocides.
And why is bush so bad? Why should troops be removed from Iraq?
I'm not saying I agree or disagree, I just would prefer people use reasons over blatent statements with no backup. To me kids seem to think its cool to hate bush.
Named
11-07-2006, 05:50 PM
I'd say it's fine to hate ignorant dictators. He removed Saddam, if only he had the humble insight to remove himself.
In a country founded on Freedom, especially of belief, it is wrong in more ways I can concieve for a religious man to be PRESIDENT of the nation, particularly one of weak education whom cannot even SPEAK for himself in public addresses. Yes, I could list to you all the frightful errors Bush has made, but it's become as redundant as stating the sky is blue. If you can't see it, how can anything I say clarify what reality couldn't?
i_feel_tiredsleepy
11-07-2006, 07:19 PM
Geez, Saddam never planned any terrorist acts against the USA, there is even proof that Bin Laden approached Saddam and was turned away. Saddam is guilty of killing a couple thousand people, however there are worse people still running countries in the world and USA has never decided to interfere in those countries, which suggests that there was more reason to the war than ousting Saddam. People in the USA seem to think of Saddam as another Islamic extremist like Bin Laden, but this isn't true. Moreover, no one bitched about Saddam using gases on the Iranians when Iran was the enemy. If the USA wants to put its soldiers lives at risk for a cause they should invade Sudan to stop the genocide happening there at the moment.
Things that were better under Saddam:
Under Saddam's rule women had the right to education and equal rights as men, now many are afraid to walk in the streets because of the lack of policing.
Under Saddam they had functioning hospitals and schools.
Under Saddam in the major cities starvation was fairly rare.
Lol, this reminded me of something I heard once in a class, what does the fact that the media has trained us all into calling Saddam by his first name mean? We've all been conditioned into treating him with less respect by calling him plainly by his first name.
Octo think! its so logical , bush made troops in Iraq now , it provokes the people to bomb them because just their presence here makes them mad , and everyday , some number of troops and Iraqs on both sides die , if BUsh removes them , maybe they'd calm down???
- and now , Bush is planning to move the troops away and giving the Iraq government to control Iraq , if they fail to control it ( meaning starvation , policing , calming down the people) Bush might send back the troops
ScareCrow
11-07-2006, 08:00 PM
Btw, I glanced at an article in the newspaper where Iraqi's were protesting Saddam's death sentence. Anyone got any information on this?
i_feel_tiredsleepy
11-07-2006, 08:01 PM
A lot more Iraqis die than American's and a large amount of those Iraqis are innocent civilians.
yeah because of the suicide bombers...thks sleepy this is the proof ive been waiting for! if troops leave , suicide bombers have no reason to bomb , the innocent civilians will not die
i_feel_tiredsleepy
11-07-2006, 08:38 PM
Most are killed by US soldiers actually the suicide bombers don't usually target civilians in Iraq. Its in Israel where suicide bombers target civilians.
Suicide bombers target the troops and some troops hapen to be in stores and streets near civilians so its a cioncidence
i_feel_tiredsleepy
11-07-2006, 08:48 PM
Geez US troops have even shot reporters driving to the airport, the American soldiers are jumpy and shoot at the drop of a hat.
People should read about Saddam before passing judgement on him, he was a completely secular leader until 2001 when his government was almost overthrown by religious extremist and he reinstated muslim law to placate the masses.
The protest resulted from the portion of the Iraq population that saw him as a hero, Saddam is a Sunni muslim, the sunnis make up 20% of the iraqi population and tended to be oppressed by the governments before Saddam, Saddam favoured Sunnis in his policies so they loved him. Many loved him for being a leader willing to stand up against the USA and speak the mind of his people. Its easy to imagine how he can be admired by many people there because he was the leader of Iraq that was responsible for all the improvements in Iraq since he took power in the lates 60s. He took away the European owned oil companies and stopped the rape of Iraqi assets that had been going on for years. Many women must have respected him for abolishing Sharia law. However, like I said he was forced into reinstating those oppressive religious laws.
they're not trained well , and once you put them in Iraq for too long , they get too cautious because of the bombings and might attack civilians....this is also why bush must take them out
they're not trained well , and once you put them in Iraq for too long , they get too cautious because of the bombings and might attack civilians....this is also why bush must take them out
please stop reiterating the same point over and over and over, it's quite redundent. If we leave Iraq, the bombing would keep happening, it happened before we got there. Just now the U.S. wants it covered on TV so they can say "see how bad this nation was?!?!? we're helping it."
Also you've only mentioned negatives, what of all the lives the U.S. has saved, do only the dead matter when counting tolls?
Edit: also they're trained pretty well.
And NAMED, I in nooo way implied that you were one of the "let's bash bush" children. I feel you know what you're talking about. Rakeri however has always struck me as a spammer with no proof.
Hellchild915
11-08-2006, 02:03 AM
I think all the Israeli leaders should be hung for the genocide they are doing.
i_feel_tiredsleepy
11-08-2006, 02:08 AM
Also you've only mentioned negatives, what of all the lives the U.S. has saved, do only the dead matter when counting tolls?
Except that more people have died in Iraq during this war in a couple years than saddam killed in 40 years.
Hellchild915
11-08-2006, 06:00 AM
Israeli shells hit Gaza town, killing 18 more to what I say about Israeli committing genocide
NarutoNineTails
11-08-2006, 04:43 PM
Except that more people have died in Iraq during this war in a couple years than saddam killed in 40 years.
American people has spoken...Tsunami has hit the republican party. :)
when's saddam's death anyway?
Cat gave birth to puppies, Brazilian claims
Nov. 17, 2006. 10:42 AM
REUTERS
PASSO FUNDO, Brazil — Geneticist Adil Pacheco took blood samples Friday from three puppies in a poor neighbourhood in Passo Fundo in southern Brazil to settle a dispute over a claim they were born from a cat.
"It's rather simple really. If the puppies prove to have 78 chromosomes, they are dogs. If they have 38, they are cats," said Pacheco, director of the Institute of Biological Sciences of the University of Passo Fundo.
"But I seriously doubt they are feline. Every characteristic about them is canine."
Cassia Aparecida de Souza, 18, said her cat Mimi had given birth to the three puppies as well as three kittens, which did not survive. And she, her husband Rogerio Jorge da Silva, 26, and several others in the town believe a neighborhood mut named Dog is the father of Mimi's pups.
When news of the spectacular claim spread in the Brazilian media, some local newspapers accused the poor couple, who are expecting their first child in a few months, of fraud and said they were simply trying to make money off a hoax.
"I feel indignant at such accusations," da Silva said.
Pacheco said he was asked by a local newspaper to conduct the chromosome test, which should yield results on Tuesday.
"It's not uncommon for mammals to nurse young from another species. The cat gave birth in a field and she likely inherited the puppies from a nearby female dog who had recently given birth," he said.
i_feel_tiredsleepy
11-18-2006, 01:45 PM
Lol those towns people are either big liars or just ignorant. A cat and a dog can't have viable young, because the young could never have a complete cat or dog genome since it wouldn't have matching homologous chromosomes. If anyone ever believed these people they are insane, the only other possible way would be if the cat had dog embryos implanted in it, but this is absurd also, not only for financial reasons, but because the cats immune system would reject the embryos.
RevKev
11-18-2006, 02:05 PM
It's not impossible, it just defies what we know of biology. Also, since I know so little of animal chromosomes, including how to spell the word, does anyone know if animal DNA can be traced, like a humans? If so, the scientist isn't being very scientific, as he isn't testing the lineage of the puppies against that of the cat. If the claim is true then we're looking at the truning point in biological sciences!
i_feel_tiredsleepy
11-18-2006, 07:07 PM
Its impossible rev because if the cat gave birth to puppies from a dog father.
1) cats and dogs have different numbers of chromosomes that don't add up thus they aren't homologous, so the offspring would never be possible since extra or missing chromosomes have huge problems. For example, downs syndrome is caused by an extra 21st chromosome. and in the case of this cat's ofspring it would have like 50 chromosomes without their match, no way in hell this would form a viable animal.
2) DNA test is what they are going to do, he said he was going to do a chromosome test. And ya a test of the mitochondrial DNA would prove this wrong, because mitochondrial DNA is maternal in origin only, so if they look like dogs but have cat mitochondria... then I'll believe it, but this is just so ridiculously impossible. Or maybe its an ugly cat that just looks like a dog but i doubt this also.
Something tells me that biology/genetics aren't just hobbies of yours. Is that part of your major/occupation?
i_feel_tiredsleepy
11-18-2006, 07:23 PM
I've said this quite a lot, but ya I'm a major in microbiology and immunology, which has a lot to do with genetics.
didnt they call them "puttens"?
RevKev
11-18-2006, 08:45 PM
It was also impossible that the earth was not the center of the universe, not flat, or possible to go higher than a mountain upon. I don't buy impossible. After all, what is biology but advanced chemistry? What is chemistry but activites between chemicals? What are chemicals besides a collection of certain elements, displaying properties based on their formation? What are elements if not a collection of atoms? And what are atoms besides those sub-atomic particles? We don't have the biggest database of knowledge going in regards to the reactions between atoms on the subatomic level. So, we can't say with any level of impunity what is "impossible". Ergo, while improbable, the word impossible is a bit much.
Also, doesn't biology have a word for when "impossible" stuff randomly happens in nature? Mutation?
what is outside the universe anyway? they say the universe is expanding...but on what?
Ug the entire trial was a sham, the judge himself expressed that saddam hussein should die long before the end of the trial, moreover all the people involved in the trial have been appointed by the president of iraq who is practically a puppet of the USA. Also, the presidents of Iraq and USA both compremised justice by giving their opinion of how the trial should end. As for the death sentence, if it has to be a death sentence why hanging? Why don't we just get a guy with big hands to strangle him to death because its just as brutal; hanging is an outdated inhumane way to execute prisoners (as if execution can ever be humane) that should be abolished. The USA's execution policies are absurd, they are the only first world country that executes prisoners and the US won't sign the UN declaration of human rights because they want to reserve their right to kill the handicapped and children, it sickens me. Finally, people love to pass judgement on the few thousands killed by saddam, but the USA is responsible for some of the biggest mass murders in history, such as the dropping of the nuclear bombs on Japan and the mass slaughter of civilians in Vietnam. This being the reason why the USA won't join the world court because many former US leaders would be found guilty of war crimes.
I agree the hanging was inhumane for the usa to do, but then again ANY other country in the world would of tortured him brutally, endlessy and uncaringly for a long time before they killed him. It may look bad but what he did to us was a lot worse what with desert strike and the twin towers, pentagon and white house and the treaty saying they would not attack us. =/
Hmm. And the Un is basically total and complete bs. We are the only ones who actually follow the rules and keep everyone from blowing each other up with nukes and etc. The only reason they would want us to sign that is so when they attack us (and blow up whatever hospitals, etc.) They can make us look bad when we counter attack or retaliate in any way and make sure the media and press only get the crap that were doing bad so we look like total jackasses in the process and there sweet and innocent. We shouldnt be even in the Un if other countrys wanna kamikazi and attack or our allies we should blow the crap out of them right back without hesitaztion I know that may seem harsh but they will keep doing it if we do nothing. And saddam killing a "Few thousand.." Theres no such thing as a "few thousand" innocent lives you would not be saying that if your parent(s), friends got killed in there, and what for if they did to be part of the "few thousands." killed?
The attacks that we made against other countries were all provoked by the killings on innocent americans.
Japan they attacked us, I agree usa went to far as in the bombing. I feel sorry for the victems that still die today from the radiation and etc.
But they never attacked us again, did they? ( was it nuclear bomb on japan? not sure... I thought it was atomic?)
Vietnam my details on this are limited but again they started it. If i knew more about this I would post more... sorry =[
Saddam needed to die, or at least be help in captivity for life. Because of the fact that he slaughtered hundreds of his own people on the spot just because he felt they needed to die. He attacked us and killed hundreds and thousands of people for no reason and tried too kill hundreds of thousands for what with the bomb under the towers ( we disabled it.. or it didnt go off forgot), how you can sympithize with that is beyond me. He was a terrible dictator and everyone should be glad he is no longer a threat to everyone in america.
Sorry for mispellings I hate this keyboard! >:)
Damn, I don't think it's impossible. No matter how much you prove it is.
uchiha_melody
11-19-2006, 10:09 AM
Police have vowed to track down and charge the masked G20 protesters branded thugs and cowards who went on the rampage in central Melbourne on the first day of the weekend summit.
Police have set up Taskforce Salver and so far seven people have been arrested in the wake of Saturday's pitched battles between police armed with batons and hundreds of anti-globalisation supporters attempting to disrupt the conference at the Grand Hyatt hotel in the heart of the CBD.
Federal and interstate agencies will be involved in the investigations.
more... (http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Police-vow-to-find-G20-thugs/2006/11/19/1163871266482.html)
----------
couldn't sleep for a week , we stayed put in ...my dad told me it was the worse rampage EVER! ...we live in central Melbourne where it happened..., they even caught 10 people who were smuggling drugs in ....scary , yanno Melbourne isn't as quiet as perth and Sydney ...tis loud and can be scary at some times....yeah ...
^^; i know not exactly interesting news but...tis important
p.s i hate the hyatt hotel >_<
i_feel_tiredsleepy
11-19-2006, 01:00 PM
I agree the hanging was inhumane for the usa to do, but then again ANY other country in the world would of tortured him brutally, endlessy and uncaringly for a long time before they killed him. It may look bad but what he did to us was a lot worse what with desert strike and the twin towers, pentagon and white house and the treaty saying they would not attack us. =/
Hmm. And the Un is basically total and complete bs. We are the only ones who actually follow the rules and keep everyone from blowing each other up with nukes and etc. The only reason they would want us to sign that is so when they attack us (and blow up whatever hospitals, etc.) They can make us look bad when we counter attack or retaliate in any way and make sure the media and press only get the crap that were doing bad so we look like total jackasses in the process and there sweet and innocent. We shouldnt be even in the Un if other countrys wanna kamikazi and attack or our allies we should blow the crap out of them right back without hesitaztion I know that may seem harsh but they will keep doing it if we do nothing. And saddam killing a "Few thousand.." Theres no such thing as a "few thousand" innocent lives you would not be saying that if your parent(s), friends got killed in there, and what for if they did to be part of the "few thousands." killed?
The attacks that we made against other countries were all provoked by the killings on innocent americans.
Japan they attacked us, I agree usa went to far as in the bombing. I feel sorry for the victems that still die today from the radiation and etc.
But they never attacked us again, did they? ( was it nuclear bomb on japan? not sure... I thought it was atomic?)
Vietnam my details on this are limited but again they started it. If i knew more about this I would post more... sorry =[
Saddam needed to die, or at least be help in captivity for life. Because of the fact that he slaughtered hundreds of his own people on the spot just because he felt they needed to die. He attacked us and killed hundreds and thousands of people for no reason and tried too kill hundreds of thousands for what with the bomb under the towers ( we disabled it.. or it didnt go off forgot), how you can sympithize with that is beyond me. He was a terrible dictator and everyone should be glad he is no longer a threat to everyone in america.
Sorry for mispellings I hate this keyboard! >:)
First an atomic bomb is a nuclear bomb.
2nd Saddam had nothing to do with september 11th and had no connections to terrorist, and desert storm is the name of the US attack on Iraqi forces in the 80s. The excuses which you should use for attacking Iraq is that they could have been a danger in the future, but there are a lot of countries that this is also true of. He can't be accused of killing hundred of thousands of Americans since this number of Americans haven't been killed since the second world war. 5000 people were killed on sept. 11th.
The Japanese actually attacked a military target, the American's blew up two cities, when dropping the bomb off the coast of Japan in sight of people also could have proved the point.
So the vietnam war, no vietnamese attacked the USA, this was a war to prevent communism from taking control of Vietnam, so in there intense charity the USA decided that it would kill vietnamese in an attempt to convince them not to be communist even though they wanted to be. Vietnam war was a civil war that the USA decided to get involved in, and when it got to be too much trouble because the communist wouldn't give up after being bombed, poisoned, and slaughtered. (their numbers just kept getting replenished by those people who were upset about their families being caught in the crossfire.) The USA left after losing 50,000 soldiers and killing 2-2.5 million vietnamese.
RevKev
11-19-2006, 01:54 PM
I'll agree we had no business in Iraq, said it from day one, but if you HONESTLY think that what happened to Japan was the first move we considered, you're not reading the whole story. We considered a frontal attack, just like we used in Europe, however the cost in terms of American lives was just too much, and even then we might very well not break the beachhead. Japanese beaches are far to easily entrenched, and unless we wanted to loose double the fighters and gain half the ground, as when compared to D-Day, we had to consider another option. We decided to make a stand, one that would devistate the nation as a power, and even more, show the entire world that this was NOT something we would tollerate. It wasn't just to stop the Japanese from fighting, it was to quell the independent German forces as well as give our allies some home that we where the new world power, and we could guide them forward.
And if you think they've have laid down arms any other way, why did the war continue after the first bomb? Why was it that after we where forced to use it AGAIN that the city officials had to come to the country's leader and BEG him to end the war before more lives where lost. Anything less than having nuclear power, and we'd have been forced to eradicate the entire populace to bring it to an end, and the cost in American lives would've been to high. This is one instance, where sadly, America's "velvet glove" would have simply lead to more casualities.
First an atomic bomb is a nuclear bomb.
2nd Saddam had nothing to do with september 11th and had no connections to terrorist, and desert storm is the name of the US attack on Iraqi forces in the 80s. The excuses which you should use for attacking Iraq is that they could have been a danger in the future, but there are a lot of countries that this is also true of. He can't be accused of killing hundred of thousands of Americans since this number of Americans haven't been killed since the second world war. 5000 people were killed on sept. 11th.
The Japanese actually attacked a military target, the American's blew up two cities, when dropping the bomb off the coast of Japan in sight of people also could have proved the point.
So the vietnam war, no vietnamese attacked the USA, this was a war to prevent communism from taking control of Vietnam, so in there intense charity the USA decided that it would kill vietnamese in an attempt to convince them not to be communist even though they wanted to be. Vietnam war was a civil war that the USA decided to get involved in, and when it got to be too much trouble because the communist wouldn't give up after being bombed, poisoned, and slaughtered. (their numbers just kept getting replenished by those people who were upset about their families being caught in the crossfire.) The USA left after losing 50,000 soldiers and killing 2-2.5 million vietnamese.
Mann! >.< I hate getting beat every time I agrue. I admit you make a good point, where do you learn these things? Ill I ever hear of it is what is on the news(cant trust) and school(really cant trust) And I looked into vietnam war and yea that was a bad move on us. However Revkev almost stole my words ( He worded it way better) On Japan
Some of the things he said are just known facts if you didn't know.
Watch the news, read the newspaper :)
Flyin
11-19-2006, 08:55 PM
Even the news is kind of crap. I read the paper every day, but I can tell when they say things that are complete bull. There was articles that said all of Iraq, Iran, Afganistan...pretty much all the 'stans', had terrorist ties. A few months later, 'Iran gives glory to American frontier' yeah, now all the Iran people love bush. The news can't be trusted that much either. I prefer to talk to people from other countries to find out what happened there, much more detail, and much more truth. Other than that, listen to the BBC radio and you get a real explination, not stuff writers pull out of their ass.
Ok, I guess I ranted a bit there. It's funny people think it's inhumane. There, he would've legally been tourtured and killed, numerous times for the acts of illegal slaughter he has perpetrated. Death by hanging isn't so bad for the guy considering what many in his own political office wanted.
Honestly, I don't trust the news much myself... A few years ago when my unit was deployed to Afghanistan, we would all watch the news via sattellite at the end of the day and the news would stretch and exaggerate what was actually going on... They would report to the rest of the world for like 6 days straight on a firefight that ended in 2 or 3 hours. All my family thought I was under constant attack...
At the end of the day we would all basically watch the news and laugh...
i_feel_tiredsleepy
11-19-2006, 10:56 PM
I'll agree we had no business in Iraq, said it from day one, but if you HONESTLY think that what happened to Japan was the first move we considered, you're not reading the whole story. We considered a frontal attack, just like we used in Europe, however the cost in terms of American lives was just too much, and even then we might very well not break the beachhead. Japanese beaches are far to easily entrenched, and unless we wanted to loose double the fighters and gain half the ground, as when compared to D-Day, we had to consider another option. We decided to make a stand, one that would devistate the nation as a power, and even more, show the entire world that this was NOT something we would tollerate. It wasn't just to stop the Japanese from fighting, it was to quell the independent German forces as well as give our allies some home that we where the new world power, and we could guide them forward.
And if you think they've have laid down arms any other way, why did the war continue after the first bomb? Why was it that after we where forced to use it AGAIN that the city officials had to come to the country's leader and BEG him to end the war before more lives where lost. Anything less than having nuclear power, and we'd have been forced to eradicate the entire populace to bring it to an end, and the cost in American lives would've been to high. This is one instance, where sadly, America's "velvet glove" would have simply lead to more casualities.
I'll just quote the english philosopher Ms. Ascombe who when faced with this argument said simply that "If you can boil one baby to save a thousand men, is it morally right" this situation is easily comparable to the atomic bomb, because many babies were murdered to save the lives of soldiers who knew they were potentially going to die, and whom were in large part there volentarily. Also, the racist aspect of this decision should also be considered because no one ever would have dropped an atomic bomb on Germany, because they were white Christians, the idea that Japan would never have given up if it had just been cut off from the outside world is ridiculous they would have eventually surrendered without a full out invasion of the country. You just pointed out exactly why this act was immoral because it valued the lives of American soldiers over that of foreign civilians, it is always a war crime to murder civilians even if it is to save the lives of soldiers.
Named
11-20-2006, 12:01 AM
I'll just quote the english philosopher Ms. Ascombe who when faced with this argument said simply that "If you can boil one baby to save a thousand men, is it morally right" this situation is easily comparable to the atomic bomb, because many babies were murdered to save the lives of soldiers who knew they were potentially going to die, and whom were in large part there volentarily. Also, the racist aspect of this decision should also be considered because no one ever would have dropped an atomic bomb on Germany, because they were white Christians, the idea that Japan would never have given up if it had just been cut off from the outside world is ridiculous they would have eventually surrendered without a full out invasion of the country. You just pointed out exactly why this act was immoral because it valued the lives of American soldiers over that of foreign civilians, it is always a war crime to murder civilians even if it is to save the lives of soldiers.
Absolutely! Actions of the military should be held on those grounds. Why are American soldiers worth more than Japanese civillians? I refer to the quote above, the men of the military know their duty and accept it. Most of Japan DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THE DETAILS OF THE WAR, let alone agree with their country allying with the Axis.
America decided to kill 'innocent' civillians, people who would have in all likelihood OPPOSED the war, given a choice. They didn't know. They were still made examples of by having bombs dropped on them.
Who the fuck has the right to make examples of human life? Not America, not anyone.
Flyin
11-20-2006, 12:46 AM
I do. As does GWB, as the leader of the free world, he has the trouble and responsibility to right the wrongs, and free the unmanaged havoc in the world of its despicable ways, by force if nessecary.You never know when one of those commie, terrorists might jump up and end freedom in America by opposing the civil wars within their own country.
This was sarcasm.
Yes what the US decided on did end many innocent lives. Was it worth stopping a war? Well consider the approach Japs took when initializing their war with the west. Using espionage, and secret military tactics (SPYS) they infiltrated the American navel bases that were assigned to be a last resort, and destroyed the capibility of defending themselves. This was meant to force them to withdraw their forces, thus leaving the war in the Japs best intrest. Instead, USA created atomic bombs and used them in civilian 'decoration' and massacred two of the countries biggest and most tightly populated cities.
In my opinion, nobody should take anothers life, in any circumstances...unless they're really pissin' me off.
RevKev
11-20-2006, 01:06 AM
I'll just quote the english philosopher Ms. Ascombe who when faced with this argument said simply that "If you can boil one baby to save a thousand men, is it morally right" this situation is easily comparable to the atomic bomb, because many babies were murdered to save the lives of soldiers who knew they were potentially going to die, and whom were in large part there volentarily. Also, the racist aspect of this decision should also be considered because no one ever would have dropped an atomic bomb on Germany, because they were white Christians, the idea that Japan would never have given up if it had just been cut off from the outside world is ridiculous they would have eventually surrendered without a full out invasion of the country. You just pointed out exactly why this act was immoral because it valued the lives of American soldiers over that of foreign civilians, it is always a war crime to murder civilians even if it is to save the lives of soldiers.
Yes, it is a warcrime, now. But it was only considered a war crime after the fact. I'm not going to sit here and play the boil a baby game, because yes, it is morally right. If you're given a choice between a rock and a hard place, and those are the only choices, you have to pick one. And yes, you pick the lives of your own people who have entrusted you with their leadership over those of a foreign nation. That's not a moral decision, that's COMMON SENSE. I mean if i put a gun to your lover's head, and one to a complete stranger which one are you going to pick to die?
And yes, I am 100% saying Japan would have kept on fighting after being cut off, Pete's sake man, we used a nuclear device on them and they still wanted to fight. They had no allies left to assist them, and they wanted to fight. This was not the culture of surrender, this was the culture of fight to the last man, and bygod go down swinging! Yes it is sad so many had to die, and it sickens me that so many innocent people had to be slain to bring that entire war of atrocities to an end, but at the time no other solution was seen, and now, standing and looking back at it, I'm comfortable that the right decision IN THOSE CIRCUMASTANCES was made.
And Racism? 1) We didn't have the nuclear device fully tested through most of the war, 2) the results of D-Day and the massive loss of life then and the subsequent battles was exactly what taught us the pains we where to endure if we continued the assault on Japan. Honestly, if Germany had kept fighting and shown anywhere near the resolve the japanese soldiers showed, it is within possibility they'd have tasted an a-bomb sandwhich. Thankfully they showed nothing even resembling that resolve, and where defeated via conventional means. It wasn't racism that stopped the bomb on them, it was simple lack of necessity. Moreover, that should show you how unwilling we where to use those devices, if we went through the entire European campaign with them unused, and discussion of them never even made news. much less history.
i_feel_tiredsleepy
11-20-2006, 01:57 AM
It was always an immoral act whether people considered it as such or not. If I were given the choice to kill either a loved one or a stranger of course it would make me feel better to choose to kill the stranger, but that doesn't make it a morally right decision, the moral thing would be to flip a coin and pick randomly. Its tragic when people confuse whats good for them with what is morally GOOD. Just because Americans love their soldiers doesn't mean Japanese didn't love their civilians and your just measuring that for Americans it was alright to kill Japanese because it made them feel better, it doesn't change the fact that it was still the morally wrong thing to do. You're accepting nationalism, as if being born within a nation gives your life more value than people born in other nations, the value of a life can't be measured as a function of geography.
Seinfeld actor lets fly with racist tirade
· Two-minute attack on black hecklers caught on film
· Comic apologises and says he lost his temper
Dan Glaister in Los Angeles
Tuesday November 21, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Actor Michael Richards, who was filmed calling black audience members ‘niggers’ after they talked during his act at a Los Angeles comedy club. Photograph: Sarah Lee
The comic actor Michael Richards, better known as Cosmo Kramer in the long-running TV show Seinfeld, has apologised for a racist outburst that was captured on film and broadcast across the US.
Richards, 57, took exception when some black audience members talked during his act at a Los Angeles comedy club on Friday. In the recording, Richards says from the stage: “Fifty years ago we’d have you upside down with a fucking fork up your ass.”
He then proceeds to insult one man with a succession of racial epithets. “Throw his ass out. He’s a nigger! He’s a nigger! He’s a nigger! A nigger, look, there’s a nigger!” Richards says.
In a television appearance last night, after news of the tirade broke, Richards apologised, telling host David Letterman - who was interviewing Seinfeld star Jerry Seinfeld - that he was not a racist but had lost his temper.
“I was at a comedy club trying to do my act, and I got heckled and I took it badly and went into a rage,” Richards said. “For me to be in a comedy club and flip out and say this crap, I’m deeply, deeply sorry. I’m not a racist. That’s what’s so insane about this.”
Richards went on to say that his performance technique may be responsible for the comments.
“You know, I’m a performer,” he said. “I push the envelope; I work in a very uncontrolled manner on stage. I do a lot of free association, it’s spontaneous, I go into character.”
Throughout the tirade, which lasted for two minutes, the audience became confused, uncertain whether the extreme language was part of Richards’ act. Some laughed at the comments but as the attacks from the stage continued, there were gasps and some voices could be heard expressing disbelief.
The target of Richards’ comments shouted back at Richards several times, telling him that the insults were uncalled for. “That’s un-fucking called for,” one man said. “It ain’t necessary.”
Another man said: “It’s not funny. That’s why you’re a reject, never had no shows, never had no movies. Seinfeld, that’s it.”
The response seemed to drive Richards to further express his anger. Several members of the audience left their seats as Richards continued his rant before himself leaving the stage. The following night, he returned to the club to perform his act.
Following the publicity given to the incident, club owner Jamie Masada said that Richards would not perform again at the Hollywood club. “The Laugh Factory is a comedy club, not a forum for personal attacks,” he said.
The recording first appeared on the celebrity gossip website TMZ.com, the site that broke the news of Mel Gibson’s anti-Semitic tirade earlier in the summer.
Since appearing as the scene-stealing Kramer in Seinfeld, Richards’ career has been dormant. A television spin-off, The Michael Richards Show, was dropped after a few episodes, and other than his one-man comedy act and a brief stint in a West End production of Arsenic and Old Lace, Richards career has consisted of giving interviews for Seinfeld DVD compilations.
================================================== =====
Here's the link to the youtube video but you have to be logged in to view it.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-T7uKvpzVXI
RevKev
11-21-2006, 05:33 PM
It was always an immoral act whether people considered it as such or not. If I were given the choice to kill either a loved one or a stranger of course it would make me feel better to choose to kill the stranger, but that doesn't make it a morally right decision, the moral thing would be to flip a coin and pick randomly. Its tragic when people confuse whats good for them with what is morally GOOD. Just because Americans love their soldiers doesn't mean Japanese didn't love their civilians and your just measuring that for Americans it was alright to kill Japanese because it made them feel better, it doesn't change the fact that it was still the morally wrong thing to do. You're accepting nationalism, as if being born within a nation gives your life more value than people born in other nations, the value of a life can't be measured as a function of geography.
Actually, I did NOT say it was morally right. In fact I said it wasn't a moral decision, but one based on common sense. Logic Vs. Morality, in certain instances logic does prevail as the proper decision. And no, I did not attribute American lives as more valuable than those of the Japanese. All life is sacred, and should be cherished. One should never actively to end a life, no matter the situation. But when a world leader is put into a position where he must choose the people who entrusted him with leadership, put him into power, the very people he is responsible to protect, one cannot begrudge that leader for doing just that, and saving the lives of thier people over the lives of complete strangers.
i_feel_tiredsleepy
11-21-2006, 06:22 PM
First to Nick:
Michael Richards is a racist and this will probably ruin the minor semblance of a career that remained to him. Its just unfortunate that Mel Gibson can get away with calling a cop a stupid jew and saying jews cause all the wars in the world and still have a career. I advocate a complete boycott of Mel Gibson films, because being drunk isn't an excuse for being an anti-semite.
To rev:
It does not prevail as the proper decision, its the popular decision that will maintain that leader's career it is not the logical decision for the good of those civilians who are killed. It is a superficial logic that puts the good of one group over that of another.
RevKev
11-21-2006, 06:38 PM
So you're saying that if the troops had been sent in, the troops he was responsible for, and they'b been slaughtered on the beaches, and more over the troops lost by Japan as well, that even thought the number may well have totaled double what the nucklear devices did, because it was sacrificing our own lives to stop them it would have been the proper decision? I find it no more less than a little hypocryitcal you'll say we shouldn't judge the value of a life on nationality, but judging them on the case of occupation is acceptable, and moreover expected?
I didn't say it was a political move, I said it was the move of a leader. Protect the lives you're responsible for. Save the lover, let the stranger die. As I said, it was a rock, and a hard place. No matter the path we had to sacrifice lives, he chose, as a capable leader SHOULD choose, to sacrifice those whom presented a threat, rather than those whom where under his command.
i_feel_tiredsleepy
11-21-2006, 11:04 PM
This is a case of deliberate intent, its not that the civilians lives are more valuable, but a decision was made to go to war, and by chosing to kill civilians you are making a moral decision whether to kill others instead of accepting the consequences of a previous choice. Targetting civilians is immoral because they are not part of the war, when you target a civilian you are making a conscious decision to murder innocents who shouldn't ever have been involved in combat.
Some people would agree with you revkev, these people are utilitarians who measure morals just in overall happiness left over, but morals are involved in choices and to kill civilians is an immoral choice in a war. Moreover, the laws that state what a warcrime is were written after the first world war so the United States and its allies made conscious decisions to commit war crimes when they ordered the bombing of civilian targets. And your basing this on what COULD HAVE HAPPENED they say it could have cost more lives so the choice to kill innocents was made based on a possibility, thus it is completely possible if the USA had not dropped the bomb that less people would have died.
RevKev
11-21-2006, 11:55 PM
While I'll agree it was a horrible act, and that it is possible the net loss of life would have been less where bombs not dropped (I disagree 100%, I feel loss of life would have been near double, but it's too debatable so for sake of argument I'll pass on it), it still comes down to having to choose between your own troops or the lives of a foriegn power. I once again say that it is hypocrytical to say it's ok to kill 1,000 farmers, but not 1,000 McDonald's workers. Yeah, people joined the mil...oh...wait a second, they where drafted! They wheren't all volunteers, many where there due to lack of choice in the matter! So we're supposed to through the lives of our civilians away to preserve their civilians?
Morality isn't a question of happiness, and as I said the moral decision was never to bomb Japan. In fact I've said it was against morals to do so. However, once again, if we're going to be in a position where we are forced with no choice but to sacrifice the lives of a people, even you have already acknowledged you'd sacrifice the lives of the strangers before your own. This wasn't an three option teir, there where only two, one killed out people, forced to fight because it was what we felt was the proper course, or drop the bomb. I'm comfortable that such a hard decision fell into the hands of someone capable of making it. Because I still say it was the right decision. Afterall, is right to boil 10,000 men to save the life of one baby?
i_feel_tiredsleepy
11-28-2006, 02:05 AM
Firstly I said that the moral decision would be to kill at random if a person needed to be killed, however I am not a perfect being so it is unlikely I would make that choice, it is also unlikely I would ever get over the guilt of killing the stranger.
It is all a concept of innocence, in the context of a war it is morally acceptable to kill soldiers because they actively promote the process of war, thus by killing the soldiers you are in affect fighting an aspect of the war. However, civilians who do not contribute to the war effort, i.e. babies. Can't be considered reasonable targets of attack because they in no way affect the outcome of the war, thus the dropping of bombs on civilians in any case is immoral. And where are we left if we can violate morality for as you say "common sense", when you say morals are only valid in certain situations you reject the entire concept of morality and make it pointless.
Flyin
11-28-2006, 02:55 AM
Micheal Richards - It's like he said, he's not seriously a racist, and honestly, if I had been there, I would be laughing my ass off. I say lot's of racist, sexist and completely non-PC things, but I don't, and nobody that knows me, takes it seriously. People need to stop worrying about that sort of stuff. They have nothing better to do then whine and complain, trying to ensure all of western society is sheltered from reality. This is why children are for the most part wussies now, why they're fat, why they're overly emotional and can't handle the least bit of stress. People need to suck it up and laugh. Whiney kyke, nigger, chink, flip, gook, craut, stump jumper, chugg, brick head, spick, etc...Don't take everything seriously, you have to know the context and history of where it's coming from. Sorry if I have offended anyone, but why make such a huge deal of it?
i_feel_tiredsleepy
11-28-2006, 11:34 AM
Um. Its not the N word that people are really upset about more the fact that he talked about lynching black people, a racist crime that was still happening 40 years ago at fairly frequent rates.... And it wasn't a joke he was just yelling racist insults at a black guy in the audience. I refuse to accept any argument that racism is fine just because your accustomed to it or that its just part of the world and we should accept, the world is meaningless thus I have no obligation to accept it the way it is. Humanity should always fight to shape the world to an ideal image where all humans can live without being held back by prejudices.
"omnia vincit amor", love conquers all. -Virgil
Flyin
11-29-2006, 12:39 AM
~Love never fails~ 1Cor 3:12
Anyways, I talk about lynching, good old fashioned coon broom. People are just gettting bent out of shape because he's famous and he did it. Everyone wants a shot to look bigger than the famous guy. I'm not condoning his actions, which is why I don't go to the bronx and say stuff like that, he was unfamilliar with the people and let it slip. But making a huge deal out of it is just going to spread more hate, not of a racist kind, but severely personal anti Micheal Richards.
No, it wasn't right or good to say, and all told shouldn't be said in any situation. But it happens, as well as swearing, and insulting others. The only time it becomes worth more than a glare, however, is when people start freaking out about it. Give it a rest, let it go, turn the other cheek, return evil for evil, to no one.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.