Medieval America puts six to death .

ExpressLane said:
Remind me how many hostages did the Hamas terrorist just execute?
Click to expand...
None. Dead hostages are victims of the insane Jews;

hostages.jpg
 
T. A. Gardner said:
So, the death of 113, or 36, people at the hands of prisoners in prisons is an acceptable loss compared to the loss of say an equal number of murderers, rapists, or repeat violent career criminals being put to death for you hum? 113, 36, whatever the number of people who committed no crime should have to die because you are unwilling to kill those that murder, rape, or repeatedly commit violent crimes?

Great set of morals you have there. Oh, by the way, I've never mentioned the monetary aspect of this, just the moral relevance of allowing a monster to remain alive to kill more people, commit more crime, while innocents suffer for it. I find that immoral and unacceptable.
Click to expand...
I knew it wouldn't be long before you twisted my words or entirely faked my position. No, 36 prison guard deaths are no more acceptable than tolerating 35,000 auto deaths because cars are valuable to society, or thousands of gun deaths annually being tolerated because of the 2nd amendment, or thousands of troops deaths being tolerated because of phony wars.

You are in no position to lecture anybody about morals, with your casual acceptance of state killing. There's a reason why the death penalty is banned in most 1st-world nations, and it's an embarrassment to see the US in line with countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
 
christiefan915 said:
I knew it wouldn't be long before you twisted my words or entirely faked my position. No, 36 prison guard deaths are no more acceptable than tolerating 35,000 auto deaths because cars are valuable to society, or thousands of gun deaths annually being tolerated because of the 2nd amendment, or thousands of troops deaths being tolerated because of phony wars.
Click to expand...

The question on the table here is, Are 36 guard's deaths worth keeping the prisoner(s) who killed them alive? The above is just a strawman.
christiefan915 said:
You are in no position to lecture anybody about morals, with your casual acceptance of state killing. There's a reason why the death penalty is banned in most 1st-world nations, and it's an embarrassment to see the US in line with countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
Click to expand...
I'm in a position to lecture YOU on morals since you seem to have some really skewed ones. Yes, there's a reason the death penalty is banned in most 1st world nations, and that reason is the nonsensical, non-thinking, irrational positions held by the Left have been forced on them.
 
Ross Dolan said:
Not even in war?

So you are saying that the soldiers of both sides in WWII...were all murderers?
Click to expand...
You have to consider that WW2 was fought before the introduction of the United Nations and the universal laws decreed by the agreement of all its member states. One of those laws is that war is illegal. This is fact- war is illegal, ergo , all people killed in war are killed illegally- and illegal killing can be considered as murder almost everywhere.
So no- the soldiers of WW2 were not murderers according to universal laws that did not exist at the time- although the war itself was in contravention of the Kellog/Briand Peace Pact of 1928. - officially the General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy

www.bing.com

Kellog/Briand Peace Pact. - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.
www.bing.com www.bing.com

Also- ' Thou shalt not kill ' ain't a bad commandment- even for the ungodly.
Amen.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The question on the table here is, Are 36 guard's deaths worth keeping the prisoner(s) who killed them alive? The above is just a strawman.

I'm in a position to lecture YOU on morals since you seem to have some really skewed ones. Yes, there's a reason the death penalty is banned in most 1st world nations, and that reason is the nonsensical, non-thinking, irrational positions held by the Left have been forced on them.
Click to expand...
You outspoken hatred of liberals and lies about what they do doesn't put *your* morals in a good light. Because it sure sounds like you're making a partisan issue out of this. Try thinking like a humanitarian for once in your grievance-filled life.
 
moon said:
You have to consider that WW2 was fought before the introduction of the United Nations and the universal laws decreed by the agreement of all its member states. One of those laws is that war is illegal. This is fact- war is illegal, ergo , all people killed in war are killed illegally- and illegal killing can be considered as murder almost everywhere.
So no- the soldiers of WW2 were not murderers according to universal laws that did not exist at the time- although the war itself was in contravention of the Kellog/Briand Peace Pact of 1928. - officially the General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy

www.bing.com

Kellog/Briand Peace Pact. - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.
www.bing.com www.bing.com

Also- ' Thou shalt not kill ' ain't a bad commandment- even for the ungodly.
Amen.
Click to expand...
So if America were invaded next year by a foreign nation and we defended ourselves by killing the invaders...we would be committing murder of those people?
 
christiefan915 said:
You outspoken hatred of liberals and lies about what they do doesn't put *your* morals in a good light. Because it sure sounds like you're making a partisan issue out of this. Try thinking like a humanitarian for once in your grievance-filled life.
Click to expand...
I am thinking like a humanitarian. A society is made up of many people. If someone in that society is so evil they kill, rape, or commit grievous violence on that society repeatedly and have shown neither remorse nor any capacity to change when punished, they should be removed from that society permanently, and that doesn't mean more prison time.
 
Ross Dolan said:
So if America were invaded next year by a foreign nation and we defended ourselves by killing the invaders...we would be committing murder of those people?
Click to expand...
The invasion would be illegal and the invaded have a right to defend themselves under law.
The illegal invaders could be considered to be murderers - and could be prosecuted as such with the agreement of the UN Security Council.
 
moon said:
The invasion would be illegal and the invaded have a right to defend themselves under law.
The illegal invaders could be considered to be murderers - and could be prosecuted as such with the agreement of the UN Security Council.
Click to expand...
Moon, you are too smart for this kind of shit.

Earlier you wrote: "...all people killed in war are killed illegally- "

So...do you want to reword that thought?
 
Ross Dolan said:
Moon, you are too smart for this kind of shit.

Earlier you wrote: "...all people killed in war are killed illegally- "

So...do you want to reword that thought?
Click to expand...
No- it stands. War is illegal. The perpetrators can be classified as murderers. Defenders who kill attackers have a right to do so- but the killings are not legal as war itself is illegal. However, the defenders cannot be classified as murderers as the circumstances are mitigating.
It is still wrong to kill- but the defender cannot be prosecuted as the killing was self-defense.

Still- your belief that this is ' shit ' is insulting- so don't bother me again.
 
moon said:
No- it stands. War is illegal. The perpetrators can be classified as murderers. Defenders who kill attackers have a right to do so- but the killings are not legal as war itself is illegal. However, the defenders cannot be classified as murderers as the circumstances are mitigating.
It is still wrong to kill- but the defender cannot be prosecuted as the killing was self-defense.

Still- your belief that this is ' shit ' is insulting- so don't bother me again.
Click to expand...
You said, "all people killed in war are killed illegally."

You also said, "The invasion would be illegal and the invaded have a right to defend themselves under law."

You ought to reword what you wrote...or accept having it called to your attention that you contradicted yourself.

YOU do not get to decide what I respond to.
 
Ross Dolan said:
You said, "all people killed in war are killed illegally."

You also said, "The invasion would be illegal and the invaded have a right to defend themselves under law."

You ought to reword what you wrote...or accept having it called to your attention that you contradicted yourself.

YOU do not get to decide what I respond to.
Click to expand...
#76 explains what you've failed to grasp. I've answered your questions fully.
I'm requesting that you don't bother me again. Your questions are turning to shit.
 
volsrock1 said:
Killing in war is not the same as murder because killing in war is legal and sanctioned by the rules of war


Now when Hamas kills its ALL illegal murder
Click to expand...
The "rules of war" what a joke.

The idea is not to get killed prior to killing the other guy. It's war.

Sorry if I'm not interested in rules. :ROFLMAO:
 
moon said:
#76 explains what you've failed to grasp. I've answered your questions fully.
I'm requesting that you don't bother me again. Your questions are turning to shit.
Click to expand...
You are losing it, Moon. Get back under control.

I will respond to whomever I choose...about whatever I choose. If you do not like my responses, put me on IGNORE.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top