Red Robin
Well-known member
I have to go feed some calves in the weaning pen. Why don't you try to get some support from your liberal buddies and I'll check back later.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
World Peace
- Thread starter Soapweed
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
elwapo
Well-known member
you said that Capital punishment and murder of a civilian are the same.
I said "the results are the same"
I stand by my point that the state or church should have no right to end life.
elwapo
Well-known member
Mike . Let me know when you have some support for your position.
elwapo
Well-known member
sorry mike that was supposed to read
Red Robin
Red Robin
Red Robin
Well-known member
Elwapo It's quite alright if you call me Mike.
Here is where I got the idea you equate capital punishment to civilian beheadings.
Here is where I got the idea you equate capital punishment to civilian beheadings.
The results are only the same concerning a dead body. Everything else is very different. One is just, the other is unjust.elwapo said:Red Robin
My point is to look at the level that society is at and do some comparisons.
Do they have captial punishment?
Yes when the want by anyone (just like some have promoted on this thread)
Has it made their society better?
Not a chance
Does church led doctrum dictate justice?
Yes much similar to the christian "eye for an eye"
Has that made their society better?
Not a chance
The bottom line is violence leads to violence whether it is sanctioned by the state or church.
America was founded by people who wanted to escape persecution and draconian state control. By giving the state more control to end life we take a step backward in evolution.
Again I ask you this
If America is the only 1st world country with capital punishment why does it have the highest murder rate?
Why do you not see that by allowing the state to kill people you are LESS free than other countries and one step closer to the terrorist states you fight.
Red Robin
Well-known member
I can easily support my position. My position has been clearly stated but I'll state it again. I say that the United States has set up laws which are to apply justice to our nation. I would also say that civilian be headings are very unjust and are totally unrelated to anything similiar to our capital punishment meeted out by our justice system. Since you won't logically debate me on my position and have changed yours , I'll debate you on your position.elwapo said:Mike . Let me know when you have some support for your position.
Red Robin
Well-known member
Why? On what do you base your statement?elwapo said:I stand by my point that the state or church should have no right to end life.
don
Well-known member
so when american forces kill iraqi civilians is that the same as a jihadist killing an american (civilian or military)?
Steve
Well-known member
so when american forces kill iraqi civilians is that the same as a jihadist killing an american (civilian or military)?
NO
If the American forces "targeted" the Iraqi Civilians, then it would be murder....
if the civilians were killed when we attacked a military target, it is a tragedy..
the differance is in the intent.....
jihadist intend to attack and kill civilians to promote terror.....thus are murderers....and terrorists.
in September 11 thier (main) target was civilians......
had they attacked a the pentagon only, your arguement might carry some weight....but thier intent was terror......and killing civilians....not attacking our military...
don
Well-known member
was the intent of shock and awe terror then if it was intended to intimidate the civilian population?
Frankk
Well-known member
passin thru said:I would presume the snake struck at the horse and bit him.................... :lol: :lol:
Why? Snakes don't normally eat horses nor bite them out of meanness.
Steve
Well-known member
don:
NO.....
"that the need to "Minimize civilian casualties, loss of life, and collateral damage" is a "political sensitivity [which needs] to be understood up front", requires the doctrine of Rapid Dominance"
"Rapid dominance is a military doctrine that has as its main principles "overwhelming decisive force,"...."dominant maneuvers," and "spectacular displays of power" (also known as shock and awe) as a means of destroying an adversary's will to fight and adversely affecting the psychology and the will of the enemy to resist..."impose this overwhelming level of Shock and Awe against an adversary on an immediate or sufficiently timely basis to paralyze its will to carry on … [to] seize control of the environment and paralyze or so overload an adversary's perceptions and understanding of events that the enemy would be incapable of resistance at the tactical and strategic levels."
"Reiterating the example in an interview with CBS News several months before Operation Iraqi Freedom, Ullman stated "You're sitting in Baghdad and all of a sudden you're the general and 30 of your division headquarters have been wiped out. ... In 2,3,4, days they [the military enemy] are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted."
Had the doctrine failed, the U.S. would have to throw in reinforcements and win the old fashioned way by crushing the republican guards, and that would mean more casualties on both sides,....
Within two weeks of the United States' victory declaration, on 27 April, the Washington Post published an interview with Iraqi military personnel detailing demoralization and lack of command.[13] According to the soldiers, Coalition bombing was surprisingly widespread and had a severely demoralizing effect. When United States tanks passed through the Iraqi military's Republican Guard and Special Republican Guard units outside Baghdad to Saddam's presidential palaces, it caused a shock to troops inside Baghdad. Iraqi soldiers said there was no organization intact by the time the United States entered Baghdad, and that resistance crumbled under the presumption that "it wasn't a war, it was suicide."
so again it falls back to intent......
is it your intent to say Americans are terrorists or to just defend Jihadists' actions?
was the intent of shock and awe terror then if it was intended to intimidate the civilian population?
NO.....
"that the need to "Minimize civilian casualties, loss of life, and collateral damage" is a "political sensitivity [which needs] to be understood up front", requires the doctrine of Rapid Dominance"
"Rapid dominance is a military doctrine that has as its main principles "overwhelming decisive force,"...."dominant maneuvers," and "spectacular displays of power" (also known as shock and awe) as a means of destroying an adversary's will to fight and adversely affecting the psychology and the will of the enemy to resist..."impose this overwhelming level of Shock and Awe against an adversary on an immediate or sufficiently timely basis to paralyze its will to carry on … [to] seize control of the environment and paralyze or so overload an adversary's perceptions and understanding of events that the enemy would be incapable of resistance at the tactical and strategic levels."
"Reiterating the example in an interview with CBS News several months before Operation Iraqi Freedom, Ullman stated "You're sitting in Baghdad and all of a sudden you're the general and 30 of your division headquarters have been wiped out. ... In 2,3,4, days they [the military enemy] are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted."
Had the doctrine failed, the U.S. would have to throw in reinforcements and win the old fashioned way by crushing the republican guards, and that would mean more casualties on both sides,....
Within two weeks of the United States' victory declaration, on 27 April, the Washington Post published an interview with Iraqi military personnel detailing demoralization and lack of command.[13] According to the soldiers, Coalition bombing was surprisingly widespread and had a severely demoralizing effect. When United States tanks passed through the Iraqi military's Republican Guard and Special Republican Guard units outside Baghdad to Saddam's presidential palaces, it caused a shock to troops inside Baghdad. Iraqi soldiers said there was no organization intact by the time the United States entered Baghdad, and that resistance crumbled under the presumption that "it wasn't a war, it was suicide."
so again it falls back to intent......
is it your intent to say Americans are terrorists or to just defend Jihadists' actions?
Steve
Well-known member
Frankk:
elwapo:
the horse is still dead.....
Why? Snakes don't normally eat horses nor bite them out of meanness.
elwapo:
"the results are the same"
the horse is still dead.....
don
Well-known member
steve: is it your intent to say Americans are terrorists or to just defend Jihadists' actions?
neither. i just think when you're trying to solve a problem or situation you have to see how the other side arrives at their conclusions if you're going to have any successful resolution. if they see you as terrorists they will be just as intractable as the americans who see islamofascists.
neither. i just think when you're trying to solve a problem or situation you have to see how the other side arrives at their conclusions if you're going to have any successful resolution. if they see you as terrorists they will be just as intractable as the americans who see islamofascists.
Red Robin
Well-known member
:lol: So what you're saying then Don is that as Americans we need to round up some innocent Arabs and behead them on video, send the tape to CNN and let the Arab nations try to understand how we arrive at our conclusion?don said:steve: is it your intent to say Americans are terrorists or to just defend Jihadists' actions?
neither. i just think when you're trying to solve a problem or situation you have to see how the other side arrives at their conclusions if you're going to have any successful resolution. if they see you as terrorists they will be just as intractable as the americans who see islamofascists.
don
Well-known member
depends on whether or not you think it will convince the insurgents they've killed enough americans yet.
Red Robin
Well-known member
Which depends on whether you think you can convince insurgents.don said:depends on whether or not you think it will convince the insurgents they've killed enough americans yet.
elwapo
Well-known member
red robin
here is some of the mountain of support for my opinion
According to the most comprehensive study a death penalty case costs about 2 million dollars over the cost of a life-imprisonment case. Costs in North Carolina were 2.16 million more. (Texas spends about 2.3 million to execute someone; Florida averages 3.2 million). (Source: Duke University, May 1993; Dallas Morning News, Mar 8 '92; Miami Herald, July 10 '88; Death Penalty Information Center Jan 1 '96)
As of March 1997 66 people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence. (Source Staff Report, House Judiciary subcommittee on Civil & Constitutional Rights, Oct. 1993; Death Penalty Information Center)
Radelet & Bedau found 23 cases where innocent persons were executed (Source: In Spite of Innocence, Northeastern Univ. Press, 1992)
The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilization of any country.
--Winston Churchill
can easily support my position. My position has been clearly stated but I'll state it again. I say that the United States has set up laws which are to apply justice to our nation. I would also say that civilian be headings are very unjust and are totally unrelated to anything similiar to our capital punishment meeted out by our justice system. Since you won't logically debate me on my position and have changed yours , I'll debate you on your position.
here is some of the mountain of support for my opinion
According to the most comprehensive study a death penalty case costs about 2 million dollars over the cost of a life-imprisonment case. Costs in North Carolina were 2.16 million more. (Texas spends about 2.3 million to execute someone; Florida averages 3.2 million). (Source: Duke University, May 1993; Dallas Morning News, Mar 8 '92; Miami Herald, July 10 '88; Death Penalty Information Center Jan 1 '96)
As of March 1997 66 people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence. (Source Staff Report, House Judiciary subcommittee on Civil & Constitutional Rights, Oct. 1993; Death Penalty Information Center)
Radelet & Bedau found 23 cases where innocent persons were executed (Source: In Spite of Innocence, Northeastern Univ. Press, 1992)
The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilization of any country.
--Winston Churchill
Southdakotahunter
Well-known member
i am not against nor for the death penality. sometimes the punishment fits the crime however. Here in SD we about put to death the first person in years but the GOV gave it a stay because of some mumbo jumbo. this person kidnapped a kid, beat him to a pulp, made him drink a combo of acid and beer, beat him some more, told the kid to head to a creek and clean himself up and he would let him go, then went down there and beat the kid some more and pounded his brains out with a rock. this went on over several hours and occured over somethin that happend during a video game i believe.
Tell me why this fella shouldnt die? To bad we cant do the same to them they did the poor kid who died a terible death. I say bring back public hangings!
Tell me why this fella shouldnt die? To bad we cant do the same to them they did the poor kid who died a terible death. I say bring back public hangings!
Southdakotahunter
Well-known member
oh ya, i forgot. this kid was sentenced to death and was requesting to be put to death, didnt want any appeals, yet others were protesting about it, then our beloved gov decide to give him a stay.