(CNN) -- Federal prosecutors say they'll seek the death penalty against Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, arguing that he acted in "an especially heinous, cruel and depraved manner" and lacks remorse.
The highly anticipated announcement Thursday means that when the case against Tsarnaev goes to trial, jurors will not only weigh whether he's guilty, but also whether he deserves to die.
For Liz Norden, it's one small step forward.
Her sons, JP and Paul, each lost a leg in the bombings, which killed three people and injured more than 250 at the April 15 race.
"I just am relieved that it's going forward in the right direction, one step forward in the recovery process, just that the option is out there on the table for the jurors, if that's the way it goes," she told CNN's
Whenever the case goes to trial, Norden said she plans to attend every day.
"It's important to me. I'm trying to make sense of what happened that day. My boys went to watch a friend run the marathon, and one came home 46 days later. The other one, 32 days later. And their lives are forever changed," she told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "So I want to try and find out, somehow, to make some sense of how somebody could do this to all these innocent people."
Authorities allege Tsarnaev, a Chechnya-born American, and his brother Tamerlan planted two homemade bombs near the finish line of the marathon, then killed a Massachusetts Institute of Technology police officer three days later.
The attacks triggered the massive manhunt that led to Tsarnaev's capture. Police shot and killed Tamerlan Tsarnaev during the manhunt.
"The nature of the conduct at issue and the resultant harm compel this decision," U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement released by the Justice Department Thursday announcing that prosecutors would pursue the death penalty in the case.
After Holder made his decision, prosecutors filed a notice listing factors that they argue justify a death sentence in the case. Among them: The attack killed multiple people, involved substantial planning and premeditation and involved betrayal of the United States, prosecutors said.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is charged with 30 federal counts stemming from the attack. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
The decision announced Thursday is no surprise, CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said.
"This is a case, that, if you believe in the death penalty, seems to cry out for the death penalty, even though the defendant is only 19 years old, and potentially the junior partner to his late brother," Toobin said.
But that doesn't mean it's an open-and-shut case.
"One of the most interesting, difficult, strategic decisions the defense faces," Toobin said, is whether to push for a change of venue for the trial.
"Boston was obviously deeply traumatized by this incident. And the jury pool is Boston, if the case remains where it is. But Boston is also probably the most liberal city in the country. Death penalty opposition there is higher than anywhere else," Toobin said. "So does the defense go somewhere else, where people don't have the immediate association with the crime? Or do they go somewhere that might not oppose the death penalty in the same numbers?"
Massachusetts abolished the death penalty three decades ago, but prosecutors can seek the death penalty against Tsarnaev because federal law allows for the penalty in certain circumstances.
Despite Holder's decision to authorize the death penalty in the Tsarnaev case, prosecutors still could reach a plea deal for a lesser sentence with his attorneys, who include death penalty lawyer Judy Clarke.
Federal officials weighed a number of factors before they announced their decision, including the opinions of victims of the deadly attack.
Survivors were asked to fill out a questionnaire about what they thought about the death penalty.
Marc Fucarile, who lost a leg in the bombing, said he has no doubt about where he stands: Tsarnaev deserves to die.
"I prefer the death penalty, because I prefer that people know that if you terrorize our country, you're going to be put to death," he told CNN affiliate WCVB. "And I strongly believe that's how it should be."
Life since the bombing hasn't been easy, he said.
"This is almost kind of too easy for him (Tsarnaev)," Fucarile told WCVB. "I still haven't walked for more than day in a prosthetic, and it's almost a year later. ... Life's good, you know. It's going to get better, but it's going to be a road, and it's going to be a long road for the rest of our lives."
In a statement Thursday, Gov. Deval Patrick urged the state's residents to stay strong.
"One way or another, based on the evidence, Tsarnaev will die in prison. In each milestone of the case -- today's announcement, the trial and every other significant step in the justice process -- the people hurt by the Marathon bombings and the rest of us so shocked by it will relive that tragedy," he said. "The best we can do is remind each other that we are a stronger Commonwealth than ever, and that nothing can break that spirit."
Tsarnaev's attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Reached before federal authorities announced their decision to seek the death penalty, Zubeidat Tsarnaev, the suspect's mother, did not comment on the specifics of the case.
"We are, you know, sickened about our child. ... We have nothing in our heads or in our hearts, so what should I say? We are just really sick," she told CNN's Nick Paton Walsh in a telephone interview.
"The only thing I want to say," she said, "is I want the whole world to hear that I love my son, my precious Dzhokhar. That's it."
Thousands of miles away, another mother -- Norden -- said her love for her own sons makes her want to learn more about Dzhokhar Tsarnaev during the trial, to try to understand why the deadly attacks occurred.
"I watch my sons, and it's sad. Their lives have changed, and they're OK with it. They've learned to accept it. But I can't," she said, her voice cracking. "You know, those are my kids, and they went to watch a marathon on the streets of Boston, and it shouldn't have happened."
While I feel the death penalty is a fitting end to the story, I'm troubled by the inevitable flood of comments this thread will see showing just a little more bloodthirst than is appropriate.
I've more respect for "Shooters" compare to "Bombers/IED planters". By chance you not "influence" by the rockstar quality image of him on the Rolling Stone mag by chance?
The view in the US of A of him for quite a few (Not singling you out Dae.)
My view of him
Spoiler:
[Violent video hidden by Moderator]
Its "novel" that someone so young in the US can do this compare to a actual combat zone
Without a shadow of a doubt to his guilt? Hang him in public. Cut his arms and legs off first and cauterize the wounds so he doesn't bleed out. Make the bastard suffer. We can't make him feel all the pain and damage he caused to everyone, but we sure as hell can make him feel some of it.
You call it bloodthirsty, I call it justice. When a man murders and blows limbs off of children, he deserves whatever torture humanity can grant before God gets His hands on him.
daedalus wrote: While I feel the death penalty is a fitting end to the story, I'm troubled by the inevitable flood of comments this thread will see showing just a little more bloodthirst than is appropriate.
My thoughts exactly, although in this instance more than most, it seems an exercise in futility to put him to death.
daedalus wrote: While I feel the death penalty is a fitting end to the story, I'm troubled by the inevitable flood of comments this thread will see showing just a little more bloodthirst than is appropriate.
My thoughts exactly, although in this instance more than most, it seems an exercise in futility to put him to death.
It already happened. Im just glad people like that dont make the laws.
So those who are OIF/OEF veterans who have been elected into Congress are bloodthirsty eh....Isn't there a double amputee female Rep/Sen who lost both her legs to an IED..If he's guilty...fry him....if not found guilty don't act outrage. Zimmermann case X1m. Guilty by perception but acquitted by his peers...
timetowaste85 wrote: Without a shadow of a doubt to his guilt? Hang him in public. Cut his arms and legs off first and cauterize the wounds so he doesn't bleed out. Make the bastard suffer. We can't make him feel all the pain and damage he caused to everyone, but we sure as hell can make him feel some of it.
You call it bloodthirsty, I call it justice. When a man murders and blows limbs off of children, he deserves whatever torture humanity can grant before God gets His hands on him.
While normally useless human trash like him should simply be burned and their remains tossed down a deep dark hole, as he's an Islamist nuttjob, the death penalty only gives him the glory & martyrdom he's essentially seeking.
Thus, I'd say hack his balls off, (the ultimate humiliation towards an Islamist extremist), and then keep him chained up and alive on IV's until he rots of old age and thus deny him his goal of martyring himself as Radical Jihadists love to do.
Unfortunately the politically correct whelps that run the show are instead content to simply bury their heads and ignore the real threat that the Islamists represent. While they're busy recruiting and preaching their extremist hatred of everyone bar their own twisted view of Islam, we're content to pander and try to make nice with hug-a-thug policies instead of calling out these murdering b******** for what they truly are.
Jihadin wrote: So those who are OIF/OEF veterans who have been elected into Congress are bloodthirsty eh....Isn't there a double amputee female Rep/Sen who lost both her legs to an IED..If he's guilty...fry him....if not found guilty don't act outrage. Zimmermann case X1m. Guilty by perception but acquitted by his peers...
it is a weird day when you are the one making the most sense in the thread.
Jihadin wrote: So those who are OIF/OEF veterans who have been elected into Congress are bloodthirsty eh....Isn't there a double amputee female Rep/Sen who lost both her legs to an IED..If he's guilty...fry him....if not found guilty don't act outrage. Zimmermann case X1m. Guilty by perception but acquitted by his peers...
Eh? No, I was suggesting that people who recommend out of band archaic forms of torturous, prolonged death are bloodthirsty. I have no problem with the death penalty. I have a problem with suggesting vicious "eye for an eye" punishments do more harm than good.
AlexHolker wrote: The FBI violated his constitutional right to counsel while interrogating him. It took a judge acting on her own initiative to stop them.
Not quite. The FBI using the need to ensure there was no other imminent danger to the citizenry was within legal bounds to interrogate him as they did. The Judge's actions, while legal themselves, seemed more activist on her part then anything else. The FBI was doing nothing at all illegal, and were in no way violating his rights.
AlexHolker wrote: The FBI violated his constitutional right to counsel while interrogating him. It took a judge acting on her own initiative to stop them.
Not quite. The FBI using the need to ensure there was no other imminent danger to the citizenry was within legal bounds to interrogate him as they did. The Judge's actions, while legal themselves, seemed more activist on her part then anything else. The FBI was doing nothing at all illegal, and were in no way violating his rights.
You are wrong on two points.
1. They were interrogating him for two days with no signs of stopping. That is much more than is necessary for that "imminent danger" excuse to work.
2. If the goal of your interrogation is to ensure there aren't any more bombs, conduct the interrogation "off the record". You still get what you claim you are wanting without violating his constitutional rights. Everybody wins.
djones520 wrote: You're still failing to provide the proof that what they did was illegal, and in anyway a violation of his rights.
Just because you don't "like" it, doesn't make it so.
The Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees his right to legal counsel during interrogation.
For example, quoting from Brewer v. Williams:
Rather, the clear rule of Massiah is that, once adversary proceedings have commenced against an individual, he has a right to legal representation when the government interrogates him.
You might not understand the founding principles of your own damn country, but don't assume everyone is so ignorant.
Eh, after his post, I agree fully with Experiment. Cut the guy's balls off. Arms and legs while you're at it. He can survive off a feeding tube and a catheter. Once again, bloodthirsty? No. Justice. I'm not advocating anything beyond what he deserves.
djones520 wrote: You're still failing to provide the proof that what they did was illegal, and in anyway a violation of his rights.
Just because you don't "like" it, doesn't make it so.
The Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees his right to legal counsel during interrogation.
For example, quoting from Brewer v. Williams:
Rather, the clear rule of Massiah is that, once adversary proceedings have commenced against an individual, he has a right to legal representation when the government interrogates him.
You might not understand the founding principles of your own damn country, but don't assume everyone is so ignorant.
Watch where you are slinging "ignorant" comments.
RULE 5. INITIAL APPEARANCE (DEC. 1, 2012)
(a) In General.
(1) Appearance Upon an Arrest.
(A) A person making an arrest within the United States must take the defendant without unnecessary delay before a magistrate judge, or before a state or local judicial officer as Rule 5(c) provides, unless a statute provides otherwise.
Charges where filed on Sunday evening. An appearance was scheduled by the courts on Monday morning. That is when the Judge met with Tsarnaev. Those same rules require the court to inform the suspect of his right to counsel. There was no need to provide said council prior to that. And you are asserting that he was under 48 hours of constant interrogation, which in itself is a falsehood.
Go read up on the Public Safety Exception as well, before you start slinging more accusations of ignorance.
Once again, his civil rights where in NO WAY violated, and your claims are foundless.
Because he feels justified in doing it. Just like they felt justified in what they were doing.
How about we just say, yeah, maybe we shouldn't treat people inhumanely no matter what and nobody else should either? At least then we don't sit around saying "well, it's only okay when I do it."
timetowaste85 wrote: Eh, after his post, I agree fully with Experiment. Cut the guy's balls off. Arms and legs while you're at it. He can survive off a feeding tube and a catheter. Once again, bloodthirsty? No. Justice. I'm not advocating anything beyond what he deserves.
No that's blood just plain bloodthirsty that's not justice at all and if it turns out he's Innocent down the road then you're just being cruel to someone for didn't do anything wrong. Justice isn't about bringing misery and suffering to others it's about fairness, safety and demonstrating good
Some politicians and pundits are agitating for the captured Boston Marathon bomber to be declared an enemy combatant, sent to Guantanamo, and tried in a military commission. But the only legal, pragmatic, and effective way to handle this situation is to conduct a lengthy interrogation of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and then prosecute him in United States federal court.
First, it is important to dispense with the misinformation. Under law, U.S. citizens cannot be prosecuted in the military commission system Congress set up for the detainees at Guantanamo. So this is not even a lawful option for dealing with Tsarnaev, who is a naturalized U.S. citizen.
The option of designating Tsarnaev an enemy combatant and transferring him to military custody for indefinite detention is probably illegal and, in any event, a terrible idea. The Supreme Court has held that an American citizen captured on the battlefield can constitutionally be detained under the laws of war as an enemy combatant. It has not extended this concept to citizens like Tsarnaev who are arrested in the United States for terrorism crimes. Furthermore, the Court's reasoning relied heavily on the law passed by Congress just after 9/11 that empowered the president to use "all necessary force" against any individual, organization or nation that perpetrated the 9/11 attacks. So, to place the younger Tsarnaev brother in military detention the government would need evidence that he was an active member of al Qaeda or an al Qaeda affiliated group -- information it almost certainly lacks, at least at the present date.
Placing Tsarnaev in military custody would also backfire against the United States. The action would elevate him to the status of a warrior, when we should be treating him as a low life criminal. The matter would also become a high-profile case for the international human rights community, focusing negative attention on the United States' practices rather on the perpetrators' heinous acts. Such an action would also undercut our moral authority to encourage other countries to rely on fair, open systems of justice for dealing with civilian matters rather that military control of domestic affairs.
The purported justification for using military detention is to enable authorities to engage in a lengthy interrogation of the suspect free from civil liberties concerns like Miranda warnings and the right to counsel. However, a proper interrogation should be able to be conducted in the civilian system, which would obviate the need for military detention.
In my view, the highly skilled High Value Interrogation Group created by President Obama should conduct an un-Mirandized interrogation of Tsarnaev by for as long as necessary. Information gathered in these sessions would not be turned over to the prosecutorial team and used for intelligence purposes only, such as determining any linkages Tsarnaev and his brother may have had to international terrorist organizations or other operatives living abroad. None of this information will be at all necessary to obtain a criminal conviction against Tsarnaev as there appears to be ample forensic evidence, eye-witness testimony, pictures and video to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he is a terrorist and mass murderer.
After this interrogation is over, the case should enter the criminal justice system, starting with Miranda warnings. A new team of investigators could then interrogate the suspect, unless he invokes his right to remain silent and desire for counsel.
Civil libertarians may flinch at this suggestion, but there would be no constitutional violation. The right at stake is the protection against self-incrimination. If the intelligence that is gained from the High Value Interrogation Group is only used for national security purposes and not to prosecute Tsarnaev -- there is no self-incrimination problem.
Furthermore, the approach I suggest is far more protective of civil liberties than what the Obama administration is doing now, which is invoking the "public safety" exception to Miranda. Under this concept, the administration claims the right to conduct an un-Mirandized interrogation of the suspect to collect information relating to protecting the public from possible additional acts of violence. The Supreme Court has authorized such interrogations for up to 48 hours, but the administration has argued that in cases of this magnitude the public safety interrogations could last even longer. Moreover, by relying on this exception, the administration is reserving the right to use whatever evidence it collects in the un-Mirandized interrogations in its criminal case against Tsarnaev.
The courts will have the final say on whether intelligence interrogations can take place absent Miranda warnings. Yet, Congress could bolster the case for them by enacting a new law to define when they could take place and the procedures the government must use to protect the rights of the criminal suspect. Enacting a law along these lines would be a positive new tool to enhance our national counterterrorism defenses. It would certainly be a more productive activity than the tired calls for military detention of U.S. citizens.
I know right. Something of this nature is touchy. A "Homegrown Terrorist" being declared a "enemy combatant" pretty much open up a whole can of "Oh Hell" because Obama and crew would have to deal with "Why are you saying the the US of A is now a combat zone"? I am curious though on what the Russians have on them.
timetowaste85 wrote: Eh, after his post, I agree fully with Experiment. Cut the guy's balls off. Arms and legs while you're at it. He can survive off a feeding tube and a catheter. Once again, bloodthirsty? No. Justice. I'm not advocating anything beyond what he deserves.
No that's blood just plain bloodthirsty that's not justice at all and if it turns out he's Innocent down the road then you're just being cruel to someone for didn't do anything wrong. Justice isn't about bringing misery and suffering to others it's about fairness, safety and demonstrating good
behavior.
That's why in the first post I made, I said only if it's proven without a shred of doubt (near impossible, I'll grant, but if it's 100% certain he's responsible, he deserves it). If they can't prove it 100%, no, it wouldn't be fair. Or right. But to answer your post: fairness-the guilty party took off the arms and legs of innocents. Safety-he won't be doing it again. Good-the citizens of America can rest easy that there is Zero-Tolerance to the asshats who would seek to harm the innocent. Pretty sure that meets all your marks.
Of course, sometimes I just try to post "bloodthirsty" things to see how long it takes to upset Hotsauce.
Think some of you all need to browse over Sharia Law. Right Hand cut off for stealing....."beheading" for drifting....execution for adultry even if its a rape...
Why does Sharia law matter one single bit? Is the constitution based on Sharia law? Are you a follower of Sharia law? Is our country based on Sharia law?
If "they did it first so they deserve it" is our MO then just shred the constitution and make up laws as you go along.
Well D...besdes you going down the deep end of the pool and I'm not your cup of tea to take on. Welcome to Western thinking compare to Eastern thinking. Someone comment how bloodthirsty some will get on his execution but to some a bit of violence is norm for punishment. This trial should not be all touchy feely and lets not hurt someone or somones feeling.
That's why in the first post I made, I said only if it's proven without a shred of doubt (near impossible, I'll grant, but if it's 100% certain he's responsible, he deserves it). If they can't prove it 100%, no, it wouldn't be fair. Or right. But to answer your post: fairness-the guilty party took off the arms and legs of innocents. Safety-he won't be doing it again. Good-the citizens of America can rest easy that there is Zero-Tolerance to the asshats who would seek to harm the innocent. Pretty sure that meets all your marks.
Of course, sometimes I just try to post "bloodthirsty" things to see how long it takes to upset Hotsauce.
Why not rape him to death then? Why not keep him alive and torture him for the rest of his natural life? Where do people like you draw the line? What do you do to others that also seek to harm the innocent? How about people who scam others, or don't cause physical pain? Do you dismember them and torment them for as long as you can extend their lives? What about people who park over the lines in the parking lot?
The federal prison system never operated its own gas chamber or electric chair for pre-Furman executions. Pre-Furman executions carried out within the federal prison system were by hanging. All federally mandated executions by lethal gas or electrocution were carried out in state prisons.
People who are under 18 at the time of commission of the capital crime [10] or intellectual disabled[11] are legally precluded from being executed.
Strange, that you and I agree on so much in this thread. Regardless, some punishments you just hope there is a God to be able to adequately be able to render, as no others are appropriate enough.
The trial should be just and humane and follow US constitutional law, as should the punishment.
I'm sorry war took away your humanity and the realization that we are not them. It doesn't matter one bit what their laws and cultures are because we are not the United States of Jihadistan. We follow our laws, our constitution, our culture.
The moment you become like them for the sake of revenge, then that is the moment that they already won.
Well to reinforce your perception of me D-USA. He's a bomber. He killed innocents. If he does not get the death penalty then Prosecution failed in their case. No biggie. Next be Life. No biggie there being more likely someone will kill him in prison like Dahlmer. No biggie there. Since I reinforcing your view of me and I am having fun. Yep I hate IEDer's. Why you might ask. You never experience them first hand. They do not care about collateral as long as the mission is successful. You may have a soft spot for the "Rockstar" but not I due to experience with IEDer's. That VA hospital your working at will more likely start drawing Vet's from OIF/OEF. Please try not to let your RL view interfere with your job performance being they more likely share the same view as me. Like I said since I've a feeling you never really notice I pretty much say the same thing on these type of threads. "I flip the switch". If not then I abide what his jurors went by.
I don't give a flip about his "rock star" status. He's filth.
I care about our constitution and our own system of justice.
Nothing you experienced over there changes the fact that we have a certain document that governs what we do over here.
I'm anti-death penalty, but right now it's the law. If he is found guilty and gets the death penalty then he should be executed humanely, as dictated by law.
It's all the "cut off his arms and legs and dangle him for all to watch" crap in this thread that makes it clear that some of the people here are not interested in our constitution and our values.
But keep on playing the "I've seen stuff and you don't really care about my kind" card if it makes you feel better. You swore an oath once to defend the constitution. That includes applying it to pieces of filth that don't deserve one shred of our rights like this guy.
That's why in the first post I made, I said only if it's proven without a shred of doubt (near impossible, I'll grant, but if it's 100% certain he's responsible, he deserves it). If they can't prove it 100%, no, it wouldn't be fair. Or right. But to answer your post: fairness-the guilty party took off the arms and legs of innocents. Safety-he won't be doing it again. Good-the citizens of America can rest easy that there is Zero-Tolerance to the asshats who would seek to harm the innocent. Pretty sure that meets all your marks.
Of course, sometimes I just try to post "bloodthirsty" things to see how long it takes to upset Hotsauce.
Why not rape him to death then? Why not keep him alive and torture him for the rest of his natural life? Where do people like you draw the line? What do you do to others that also seek to harm the innocent? How about people who scam others, or don't cause physical pain? Do you dismember them and torment them for as long as you can extend their lives? What about people who park over the lines in the parking lot?
Why would be get raped to death? He didn't rape anyone. I realize you're just throwing that out as a sarcastic rely to my post, but I'll respond with this: when a rapist or child molester goes to prison and gets raped and abused in return, do regular civilians care? Not one bit. Okay, maybe an oddball here or there cares, but it's not the standard view. I do honestly believe in letting the punishment fit the crime. Can that often be brutal? Sure. But a guy considering murder is less likely to do it if he knows he has a chance of suffering the same fate as opposed to three meals and a warm bed and work out bench every day.
I've had my fun comment though, turned a couple of Alph's hairs grey, and I'll stop now.
Also, my parking lot at work NEVER even gets close to a quarter of the way filled-I straddle the lines every damn day.
timetowaste85 wrote: But a guy considering murder is less likely to do it if he knows he has a chance of suffering the same fate as opposed to three meals and a warm bed and work out bench every day.
Evidence does not appear to support this assertion. It seems that:
- there's no credible evidence that capital punishment lowers the homicide rate, and
- statistics show that states with the death penalty have consistently higher murder rates than states without the death penalty
timetowaste85 wrote: But a guy considering murder is less likely to do it if he knows he has a chance of suffering the same fate as opposed to three meals and a warm bed and work out bench every day.
Evidence does not appear to support this assertion. It seems that:
- there's no credible evidence that capital punishment lowers the homicide rate, and
- statistics show that states with the death penalty have consistently higher murder rates than states without the death penalty
I chalk that up to humanity's overwhelming stupidity. Lol. I'm more afraid of getting in huge trouble if I make a mistake at work, because I may suffer from being fired or face a temporary suspension for screwing up, if its bad enough. I'm not worried about screwing up and having my boss buy me meals every day.
The federal prison system never operated its own gas chamber or electric chair for pre-Furman executions. Pre-Furman executions carried out within the federal prison system were by hanging. All federally mandated executions by lethal gas or electrocution were carried out in state prisons.
People who are under 18 at the time of commission of the capital crime [10] or intellectual disabled[11] are legally precluded from being executed.
+/Plus/Mention
"Flipping the switch"
So where in here did I mention to draw and quarter him? D you by chance get caught up me referencing Sharia Law because people are going to be offended or concern about the blood thirsty call to execute him? Or you miss my point entirely? Your not by chance blinded on my ability to feel no emotions? Able to ignore the cries of others to accomplish what needs to be done to secure a safe area? Turn a blind eye on actual starving kids and mind you ignore the fact I see cases of MRE's being dropped behind our vehicles know full well we put those villages at extreme risk. I digress. but then I am not. I am no longer supporting or defending the USA
"Flip the switch" or turn him back over to the Russian authority after we DeNat's him. DeNat'ing way cheaper and the Russian have a excellent judicial system
Me: Everybody talking about blood lust and Sharia law. It doesn't matter one bit because we have a Constitution to follow.
You: Other cultures are not as touchy feely as us and more bloodthirsty.
Me: Great. We have a constitution to follow.
You: I've seen stuff man. I've been in combat and this is how it is in war. That is how they fight. You also don't treat Veterans like you should because you disagree with me on this. Try to be a better worker.
Me: Great. We have a constitution to follow.
You: I don't feel any emotions! Did I mention that I've seen stuff.
timetowaste85 wrote: But a guy considering murder is less likely to do it if he knows he has a chance of suffering the same fate as opposed to three meals and a warm bed and work out bench every day.
Please, Please Keep spreading the Myth Prison is great. Its not like they are stuck in crampe conditions, giving food that would make even me vomit, forced into gangs to save their life. Thats why correctional officers have such an easy job. Prison is GREAT
d-usa wrote: Me: Everybody talking about blood lust and Sharia law. It doesn't matter one bit because we have a Constitution to follow.
You: Other cultures are not as touchy feely as us and more bloodthirsty.
Me: Great. We have a constitution to follow.
You: I've seen stuff man. I've been in combat and this is how it is in war. That is how they fight. You also don't treat Veterans like you should because you disagree with me on this. Try to be a better worker.
Me: Great. We have a constitution to follow.
You: I don't feel any emotions! Did I mention that I've seen stuff.
You weren't there man. You don't know what I've seen!
I don't know what world you perceive, but when the bears have taken over the Hip Hop industry and forced dozens of Americans out of work, then you'll see. You'll all see!
Jihadin wrote: Careful D. You have patients in your VA hospital like me there Now I worry about them
Me: Everybody talking about blood lust and Sharia law. It doesn't matter one bit because we have a Constitution to follow.
You: Other cultures are not as touchy feely as us and more bloodthirsty.
Me: Great. We have a constitution to follow.
You: I've seen stuff man. I've been in combat and this is how it is in war. That is how they fight. You also don't treat Veterans like you should because you disagree with me on this. Try to be a better worker.
Me: Great. We have a constitution to follow.
You: I don't feel any emotions! Did I mention that I've seen stuff?
Me: Here is your argument so far...
You: I worry about your patients!
Updated.
Going to make some sort of actual point in this thread or is it going to be more of the same?
Well D. Did you actually read to what I was replying to or did you jump the gun? Mind you I just feeding into your perception. You make it to easy.
I don't know what world you perceive, but when the bears have taken over the Hip Hop industry and forced dozens of Americans out of work, then you'll see. You'll all see!
Since I am bloodthirsty, warmongering, no emotions, willing to execute freely, and still able to think clearly without emotions or drama....kill Elmoe....he's the ring leader
Jihadin wrote: Careful D. You have patients in your VA hospital like me there Now I worry about them
Me: Everybody talking about blood lust and Sharia law. It doesn't matter one bit because we have a Constitution to follow.
You: Other cultures are not as touchy feely as us and more bloodthirsty.
Me: Great. We have a constitution to follow.
You: I've seen stuff man. I've been in combat and this is how it is in war. That is how they fight. You also don't treat Veterans like you should because you disagree with me on this. Try to be a better worker.
Me: Great. We have a constitution to follow.
You: I don't feel any emotions! Did I mention that I've seen stuff?
Me: Here is your argument so far...
You: I worry about your patients!
Updated.
Going to make some sort of actual point in this thread or is it going to be more of the same?
I figured the thread had run its course after I had admitted to trolling one person and it continued as if I never said so.
Why I think he get out of the death penalty. Interrogation without a lawyer there. Granted I fully understand why they did it (interrogating him) to confirm there were no other IED's or individuals involve. Someone mention hacking his sack off as punishment and I refer the right hand being chopped off being more effective of that nature.
If he does get life someone opting him out in general pop
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will receive the death penalty for his role in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing that killed three people and injured more than 200.
Tsarnaev was found guilty on all 30 charges in the bombing and its aftermath by the same jury in April. The jury had to unanimously agree to sentence him to the death penalty.
Defense lawyers had argued that Tsarnaev had been influenced by his brother, Tamerlan, who died as officers pursued the two brothers, and that his life should be spared. But federal prosecutors painted him as a cold-hearted killer that deserves the death penalty.
Arguments wrapped up earlier this week and the jury deliberated for 14 hours before reaching a conclusion. A number of survivors sat in the court to hear the verdict's announcement, including relatives of Martin Richard, the 8-year-old boy who died in the blast.
As part of those 30 counts, the jury also found Tsarnaev responsible for the death of a Massachusetts Institute of Technology police officer who died in a firefight with the two brothers as they tried to escape.
Lu Lingzi, 23, and Krystle Campbell, 29, were also killed in the attack. Sean Collier, 26, was the officer who died after the Tsarnaev brothers shot him in his squad car in Cambridge, Mass.
Massachusetts does not have the death penalty but prosecutors brought Tsarnaev up on federal charges. While federal judges have sentenced people to the death penalty as recently as last year, no one on death row has been executed since 2003, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Now that the verdict is in and the jury can no longer be unduly influenced by any outside factors or opinions, I'd like to know what Dreadclaw69 thinks about all of this.
d-usa wrote: McVeigh went pretty fast, but I want to say that he didn't appeal.
He requested it... via Google:
Timothy J. McVeigh has decided to end the appeal of his death sentence for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and has asked a federal judge to have him executed within four months.Dec 13, 2000
I remembered that because I recall thinking that he *requested* to be executed.
d-usa wrote: McVeigh went pretty fast, but I want to say that he didn't appeal.
He requested it... via Google:
Timothy J. McVeigh has decided to end the appeal of his death sentence for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and has asked a federal judge to have him executed within four months.Dec 13, 2000
I remembered that because I recall thinking that he *requested* to be executed.
I remember that.
Edit
Wonder if there be an out cry of him not getting a fair trial now being it was done in Boston
I doubt there are much people on this guy's side, Jihadin. The verdict was really never in doubt, the only point of contention is whether or not he would get life or death.
curran12 wrote: I doubt there are much people on this guy's side, Jihadin. The verdict was really never in doubt, the only point of contention is whether or not he would get life or death.
Indeed. This case was basically the definition of open and shut.
Hey.....you never know One can say the entire process was stacked against him from the get go You always have that one egg in the basket that will upset the apple cart
Jihadin wrote: Hey.....you never know One can say the entire process was stacked against him from the get go You always have that one egg in the basket that will upset the apple cart
Well, truth be told, the case was stacked against him. Cause of the evidence. Not so much the process. The defense's strategy from the get-go was "yes he did it, but we want to avoid the death penalty." The trial itself was incredibly fast, it took about 4 months, quite fast given the scale.
The only real upset people I can see coming from this are more towards opposition to the death penalty. I kinda find myself in a weird position because most of the time I am against the death penalty, but in this circumstance, I feel it is justified.
Alpharius wrote: Now that the verdict is in and the jury can no longer be unduly influenced by any outside factors or opinions, I'd like to know what Dreadclaw69 thinks about all of this.
Is there some inside joke that I'm not privy to? What am I missing?
Anyhoo, lay off of twitter for a while guys... it's getting atrocious.
curran12 wrote: The only real upset people I can see coming from this are more towards opposition to the death penalty. I kinda find myself in a weird position because most of the time I am against the death penalty, but in this circumstance, I feel it is justified.
This is a shame. The civilized world has rightfully abandoned the death penalty. I hope you are soon able to balance the side of you which demands justice with the humane part of you that opposes the death penalty. Justice does not necessarily result from death.
curran12 wrote: The only real upset people I can see coming from this are more towards opposition to the death penalty. I kinda find myself in a weird position because most of the time I am against the death penalty, but in this circumstance, I feel it is justified.
This is a shame. The civilized world has rightfully abandoned the death penalty. I hope you are soon able to balance the side of you which demands justice with the humane part of you that opposes the death penalty. Justice does not necessarily result from death.
I have a very tenuous support for the death penalty.
You can't deny that there's some sort of justice in this ruling.
curran12 wrote: I doubt there are much people on this guy's side, Jihadin. The verdict was really never in doubt, the only point of contention is whether or not he would get life or death.
Indeed. This case was basically the definition of open and shut.
If I recall the prosecution didn't even attempt to argue that he was innocent. Instead it was that he had fallen under the sway of his deceased brother, and that it was all the brother's fault.
curran12 wrote: The only real upset people I can see coming from this are more towards opposition to the death penalty. I kinda find myself in a weird position because most of the time I am against the death penalty, but in this circumstance, I feel it is justified.
This is a shame. The civilized world has rightfully abandoned the death penalty. I hope you are soon able to balance the side of you which demands justice with the humane part of you that opposes the death penalty. Justice does not necessarily result from death.
The death penalty has its place. Even if you have the best rehab programs, there are some people who cannot be cured. And people who are straight up evil. They cannot be reasoned with, they cannot be fixed. The only way to make the world better is to remove them from it. Thus the death penalty is necessary.
All complaints against the Death Penalty are actually problems with the legal system, not the punishment itself. Its ignoring the greater problems, out of ignorance(willful or not), in favor of a convenient target without tackling the real issues. Its SJW'ing at its finest, look like you are trying to fix problems without actually having to do anything.
Yes, Justice doesn't always result from death, it proceeds from many punishments. Death is simply an option among them.
curran12 wrote: The only real upset people I can see coming from this are more towards opposition to the death penalty. I kinda find myself in a weird position because most of the time I am against the death penalty, but in this circumstance, I feel it is justified.
This is a shame. The civilized world has rightfully abandoned the death penalty. I hope you are soon able to balance the side of you which demands justice with the humane part of you that opposes the death penalty. Justice does not necessarily result from death.
I have a very tenuous support for the death penalty.
You can't deny that there's some sort of justice in this ruling.
I certainly will not deny that it feels as though justice has been carried out.
Ugh, the death penalty. Clearly the proper response to mass killings is to add another body to the pile. I really wish America would ditch the death penalty, it's senseless and achieves nothing besides petty retribution and it does not bring the dead back. Especially when the natural state of the human mind is not a flying rodent gak insane bomber wanting to kill tens or hundreds of people- that's the sign of something being tweaked.
Even if he couldn't be rehabilitated, it's better to have tried and failed than never tried at all. Besides, death is a gakky punishment. Once you whack somebody they're sent on a one way train to oblivion. They don't live with anything. They don't learn anything about their actions... because they're dead and their brain has ceased all function.
The best punishment for any pyschopath is to correct the damage done to their mind (either by a terrible upbringing/abuse or being born with a defective brain), restore the ability to feel empathy, and let them spend the rest of their lives wallowing in guilt.
Personally, I'm not against the death penalty in theory. In some cases, there legitimately are people who do just need to die. There are some things that truly do simply deserve retribution or where rehabilitation is impossible.
That said, in practice I'm against the death penalty, partly as I believe the justice system really shouldn't be about retribution, and I also don't think the system is strong enough to protect against miscarriages of justice resulting in the execution of innocent people, and there's plenty of evidence of that.
I also certainly don't think it's any more of a deterrent than long jail sentences are, particularly when most people are not expecting to get caught in the first place when commiting such crimes or simply don't care.
Wyzilla wrote: Ugh, the death penalty. Clearly the proper response to mass killings is to add another body to the pile. I really wish America would ditch the death penalty, it's senseless and achieves nothing besides petty retribution and it does not bring the dead back. Especially when the natural state of the human mind is not a flying rodent gak insane bomber wanting to kill tens or hundreds of people- that's the sign of something being tweaked.
Even if he couldn't be rehabilitated, it's better to have tried and failed than never tried at all. Besides, death is a gakky punishment. Once you whack somebody they're sent on a one way train to oblivion. They don't live with anything. They don't learn anything about their actions... because they're dead and their brain has ceased all function.
The best punishment for any pyschopath is to correct the damage done to their mind (either by a terrible upbringing/abuse or being born with a defective brain), restore the ability to feel empathy, and let them spend the rest of their lives wallowing in guilt.
And what about people who have no sense of guilt, but aren't psychologically damaged? Many killers are perfectly sane individuals. No amount of therapy is going to make them grow a sense of shame.
Tsarneav is perfectly sane, so was his brother. He wasn't a crazy individual who snapped and decided to kill a bunch of people with his brother. They plotted to kill and maim people. Not only without any sense of shame, but actual elation in the death and pain they were going to cause.
This type of person cannot be cured or reasoned with. They're like rabid dogs, the only solution is to remove them from society permanently.
And even in the event of true psychological damage, its not always curable. Prolonging their life could be cruel and only prolongs their suffering, and highly dangerous to the people who have to look after this insane individual. There is a bit of grey area for sure, but not everyone who commits horrific acts is acting on psychological damage.
Execution: Quick simple and if yu use a rope it will cost $20 at Home Depot and it is reusable.
Life in Prison [Solitary]: He spends the rest of his life in a 8'x8' cell alone to think about the fact that now this his world. (To me the second worse thing you can do to anybody.]. Cost the state millions.
Life in Prison [General Population]: He gets to spend the rest of his life waiting for a shank. [To my the most cruel.] Cost probably lest than a million.
Life in Prison [Medieval]: Toss him in a deep hole and come back in 30 days. [I like this choice]. Cost, the gas to find a deep hole.
Jihadin wrote: Careful D. You have patients in your VA hospital like me there Now I worry about them
Me: Everybody talking about blood lust and Sharia law. It doesn't matter one bit because we have a Constitution to follow.
You: Other cultures are not as touchy feely as us and more bloodthirsty.
Me: Great. We have a constitution to follow.
You: I've seen stuff man. I've been in combat and this is how it is in war. That is how they fight. You also don't treat Veterans like you should because you disagree with me on this. Try to be a better worker.
Me: Great. We have a constitution to follow.
You: I don't feel any emotions! Did I mention that I've seen stuff?
Me: Here is your argument so far...
You: I worry about your patients!
Updated.
Going to make some sort of actual point in this thread or is it going to be more of the same?
Rule 1 mate, dig back a few months to insult someone like that again and you'll be having a holiday
Just because you have PTSD does not mean you get a free pass.
If he was insulting the PTSD, yeah that is messed up. Everyone here is responsible for their words though, and can be called on it, no matter their mental condition.
djones520 wrote: Just because you have PTSD does not mean you get a free pass.
If he was insulting the PTSD, yeah that is messed up. Everyone here is responsible for their words though, and can be called on it, no matter their mental condition.
I would say by directly pointing it out and making fun of him like that that he is being a four letter word followed by the word "Head". And I would go so far as to say if he continues in that manner I will have issues with it.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: I think the death penalty is barbaric. We should lobotomize criminals and incorporate them into functioning wetware, to performs menial tasks.
If and when this becomes practical, I would not be opposed to this.
Wyzilla wrote: Ugh, the death penalty. Clearly the proper response to mass killings is to add another body to the pile. I really wish America would ditch the death penalty, it's senseless and achieves nothing besides petty retribution and it does not bring the dead back. Especially when the natural state of the human mind is not a flying rodent gak insane bomber wanting to kill tens or hundreds of people- that's the sign of something being tweaked.
Even if he couldn't be rehabilitated, it's better to have tried and failed than never tried at all. Besides, death is a gakky punishment. Once you whack somebody they're sent on a one way train to oblivion. They don't live with anything. They don't learn anything about their actions... because they're dead and their brain has ceased all function.
The best punishment for any pyschopath is to correct the damage done to their mind (either by a terrible upbringing/abuse or being born with a defective brain), restore the ability to feel empathy, and let them spend the rest of their lives wallowing in guilt.
And what about people who have no sense of guilt, but aren't psychologically damaged? Many killers are perfectly sane individuals. No amount of therapy is going to make them grow a sense of shame.
Tsarneav is perfectly sane, so was his brother. He wasn't a crazy individual who snapped and decided to kill a bunch of people with his brother. They plotted to kill and maim people. Not only without any sense of shame, but actual elation in the death and pain they were going to cause.
This type of person cannot be cured or reasoned with. They're like rabid dogs, the only solution is to remove them from society permanently.
And even in the event of true psychological damage, its not always curable. Prolonging their life could be cruel and only prolongs their suffering, and highly dangerous to the people who have to look after this insane individual. There is a bit of grey area for sure, but not everyone who commits horrific acts is acting on psychological damage.
Insanity is not simply a slate of babbling madmen cutting their skin with blades and showing up at school with a gun to kill multiple people until they're either killed or taken into custody. It's a sliding skill from sanity with the line of where each state begins and ends being fully blurred. Numerous sociopaths are fully functional members of society and are drawn to positions of authority and power given their tendencies- but at the same time sociopaths can slide into a killer and start killing people without any cause. The very fact that they are beyond reasoning or "curing" proves they are legitimately insane- again, insanity does mean babbling nutjob who had his brain melt after seeing Cthulhu and starts talking to pink elephants that nobody can see. The definition of sanity is rational behavior. His behavior was irrational.
Plus, given how much free will is an illusion constructed by the function of the brain, execution is a nonsensical, asinine punishment. For the very same reason I find almost all Western Religion to be absurd and nonsensical, humans are just machines. Very complex biological ones made of carbon, but machines no less. You don't punish a machine for malfunctioning. You repair it and send it back to work. To punish it for being broken is irrational, no different than cursing and attempting to destroy a hammer after you broke your own finger with it. The only time execution should even be on the table is when the individual is such a danger that not even prison can safely hold them (and such individuals simply do not exist), or they are an enemy of the state during a time of war like Osama Bin Laden. The only potential "positive" outcome of this man's death is dissecting his brain to look for any flaws and shipping out the corpse for medical research.
Lethal retribution accomplishes nothing besides simply spreading more unnecessary destruction than there should be. Also, the very idea of death being "humane" is utterly fething stupid. Unless they are suffering from a horrid medical disease that causes constant and endless suffering to such a point that ceasing to exist completely and having your consciousness obliterated for good is a more pleasant option- then it becomes "humane".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VorpalBunny74 wrote: I think the death penalty is barbaric. We should lobotomize criminals and incorporate them into functioning wetware, to performs menial tasks.
> Destroying the consciousness of an individual is barbaric.
> Let's destroy the consciousness of the individual.
And if a machine is too broken to repair or be worth repairing you scrap it and get a new one. Plenty of people aren't reparable, or aren't actually broken and are just evil.
Grey Templar wrote: And if a machine is too broken to repair or be worth repairing you scrap it and get a new one. Plenty of people aren't reparable, or aren't actually broken and are just evil.
Your analogy is fatally flawed.
Being too broken to be repaired is death, not a failure in coding. In this analogy, Blue Screen of Death is what is says on the label, not snapping or having always been a sociopath.
There is no such thing as "evil", just as there is no such thing as "good". Morality is simply an illusion of the brain, and not an aspect of the universe- plus it's completely subjective to the individual and the culture that individual belongs to. Nothing makes anything right or wrong or makes taking forceful action against those believed to be "bad" justified.
Wyzilla wrote: There is zero advantage to using such labor over robotic work lines or paid labor. Slave labor is done at a loss, and undercuts the economy.
They would become robotic labour, my man. That's what 'wetware' implies.
Wyzilla wrote: There is zero advantage to using such labor over robotic work lines or paid labor. Slave labor is done at a loss, and undercuts the economy.
They would become robotic labour, my man. That's what 'wetware' implies.
Learn2Mars
Organic robots are utterly useless as a workforce. They decay as DNA Telomeres erode, organs fail, blood clots, etc. They require constant maintenance in the form of a medical doctor along with a constant supply of varied nutrients including sunlight. Meanwhile with a robotic arm on an assembly line, you forget about it for a month before coming in later to check hydraulics, change a couple gears maybe, and plug it back in before forgetting about it for another month.
Grey Templar wrote: And if a machine is too broken to repair or be worth repairing you scrap it and get a new one. Plenty of people aren't reparable, or aren't actually broken and are just evil.
Your analogy is fatally flawed.
Being too broken to be repaired is death, not a failure in coding. In this analogy, Blue Screen of Death is what is says on the label, not snapping or having always been a sociopath.
There is no such thing as "evil", just as there is no such thing as "good". Morality is simply an illusion of the brain, and not an aspect of the universe- plus it's completely subjective to the individual and the culture that individual belongs to. Nothing makes anything right or wrong or makes taking forceful action against those believed to be "bad" justified.
There most certainly is "evil" and "good". Or are you claiming that ISIS, Hitler, Stalin, or any other number of wicked people aren't evil. Just misunderstood people who needed some help in a loony bin.
Grey Templar wrote: And if a machine is too broken to repair or be worth repairing you scrap it and get a new one. Plenty of people aren't reparable, or aren't actually broken and are just evil.
Your analogy is fatally flawed.
Being too broken to be repaired is death, not a failure in coding. In this analogy, Blue Screen of Death is what is says on the label, not snapping or having always been a sociopath.
There is no such thing as "evil", just as there is no such thing as "good". Morality is simply an illusion of the brain, and not an aspect of the universe- plus it's completely subjective to the individual and the culture that individual belongs to. Nothing makes anything right or wrong or makes taking forceful action against those believed to be "bad" justified.
There most certainly is "evil" and "good". Or are you claiming that ISIS, Hitler, Stalin, or any other number of wicked people aren't evil. Just misunderstood people who needed some help in a loony bin.
They aren't evil. Morality is a chemical construct of the brain, not an inherent law of the universe. Nothing makes Hitler "bad" besides our subjective views. We may both agree that he was a stain on the human species, but no evidence suggests the universe cares about our petty morality at all. Nothing makes us right besides the force we use to force our views upon others. Objectively, neither a culture of sociopathic nutters who make daily human sacrifices any less right or wrong than a culture founded on ideals of order and empathy. All that makes the other side "wrong" are the people in one culture viewing the other with glasses tinted by their culture's ideology.
Wyzilla wrote: There is zero advantage to using such labor over robotic work lines or paid labor. Slave labor is done at a loss, and undercuts the economy.
They would become robotic labour, my man. That's what 'wetware' implies.
Learn2Mars
Organic robots are utterly useless as a workforce. They decay as DNA Telomeres erode, organs fail, blood clots, etc. They require constant maintenance in the form of a medical doctor along with a constant supply of varied nutrients including sunlight. Meanwhile with a robotic arm on an assembly line, you forget about it for a month before coming in later to check hydraulics, change a couple gears maybe, and plug it back in before forgetting about it for another month.
Nothing in 40K is applicable to reality.
You say wetware would suck because it needs maintenance, and then admit (in your next line) current robots need maintenance?
Grey Templar wrote: And if a machine is too broken to repair or be worth repairing you scrap it and get a new one. Plenty of people aren't reparable, or aren't actually broken and are just evil.
Your analogy is fatally flawed.
Being too broken to be repaired is death, not a failure in coding. In this analogy, Blue Screen of Death is what is says on the label, not snapping or having always been a sociopath.
There is no such thing as "evil", just as there is no such thing as "good". Morality is simply an illusion of the brain, and not an aspect of the universe- plus it's completely subjective to the individual and the culture that individual belongs to. Nothing makes anything right or wrong or makes taking forceful action against those believed to be "bad" justified.
There most certainly is "evil" and "good". Or are you claiming that ISIS, Hitler, Stalin, or any other number of wicked people aren't evil. Just misunderstood people who needed some help in a loony bin.
They aren't evil. Morality is a chemical construct of the brain, not an inherent law of the universe. Nothing makes Hitler "bad" besides our subjective views. We may both agree that he was a stain on the human species, but no evidence suggests the universe cares about our petty morality at all. Nothing makes us right besides the force we use to force our views upon others. Objectively, neither a culture of sociopathic nutters who make daily human sacrifices any less right or wrong than a culture founded on ideals of order and empathy. All that makes the other side "wrong" are the people in one culture viewing the other with glasses tinted by their culture's ideology.
Well we clearly disagree. And fortunately most people don't share your view and the US is willing to get rid of people like Tsarneav and Hitler, and the world is better off for it.
Grey Templar wrote: And if a machine is too broken to repair or be worth repairing you scrap it and get a new one. Plenty of people aren't reparable, or aren't actually broken and are just evil.
Your analogy is fatally flawed.
Being too broken to be repaired is death, not a failure in coding. In this analogy, Blue Screen of Death is what is says on the label, not snapping or having always been a sociopath.
There is no such thing as "evil", just as there is no such thing as "good". Morality is simply an illusion of the brain, and not an aspect of the universe- plus it's completely subjective to the individual and the culture that individual belongs to. Nothing makes anything right or wrong or makes taking forceful action against those believed to be "bad" justified.
There most certainly is "evil" and "good". Or are you claiming that ISIS, Hitler, Stalin, or any other number of wicked people aren't evil. Just misunderstood people who needed some help in a loony bin.
They aren't evil. Morality is a chemical construct of the brain, not an inherent law of the universe. Nothing makes Hitler "bad" besides our subjective views. We may both agree that he was a stain on the human species, but no evidence suggests the universe cares about our petty morality at all. Nothing makes us right besides the force we use to force our views upon others. Objectively, neither a culture of sociopathic nutters who make daily human sacrifices any less right or wrong than a culture founded on ideals of order and empathy. All that makes the other side "wrong" are the people in one culture viewing the other with glasses tinted by their culture's ideology.
Well we clearly disagree. And fortunately the US is willing to get rid of people like Tsarneav and Hitler, and the world is better off for it.
There is no disagreement, you are simply lying if you think morality is anything more than a subjective viewpoint. It can be warped to fit any ideals of any individual so long as they are capable of thinking in the first place. It's a construct of humanity, not the universe. Remember, we are insignificant dots in the middle of what may very well be infinity, existing as the entire species for what is not even a blink on the universal scale of time. We will fade from the memory of all things just as quickly as we came to be- along with our petty subjective views. Neither are our opinions nor our very bodies absolutes.
The main difference to note however is the nature of morality and how it changes. It is most likely just a chemical compound by neuroscience, but what sets apart the common man from a member of the SS in 1940? Or even better, what can you do to turn a loving family member into a raving madman with a bloodied knife?
Grey Templar wrote: And if a machine is too broken to repair or be worth repairing you scrap it and get a new one. Plenty of people aren't reparable, or aren't actually broken and are just evil.
Your analogy is fatally flawed.
Being too broken to be repaired is death, not a failure in coding. In this analogy, Blue Screen of Death is what is says on the label, not snapping or having always been a sociopath.
There is no such thing as "evil", just as there is no such thing as "good". Morality is simply an illusion of the brain, and not an aspect of the universe- plus it's completely subjective to the individual and the culture that individual belongs to. Nothing makes anything right or wrong or makes taking forceful action against those believed to be "bad" justified.
There most certainly is "evil" and "good". Or are you claiming that ISIS, Hitler, Stalin, or any other number of wicked people aren't evil. Just misunderstood people who needed some help in a loony bin.
They aren't evil. Morality is a chemical construct of the brain, not an inherent law of the universe. Nothing makes Hitler "bad" besides our subjective views. We may both agree that he was a stain on the human species, but no evidence suggests the universe cares about our petty morality at all. Nothing makes us right besides the force we use to force our views upon others. Objectively, neither a culture of sociopathic nutters who make daily human sacrifices any less right or wrong than a culture founded on ideals of order and empathy. All that makes the other side "wrong" are the people in one culture viewing the other with glasses tinted by their culture's ideology.
Well we clearly disagree. And fortunately the US is willing to get rid of people like Tsarneav and Hitler, and the world is better off for it.
There is no disagreement, you are simply lying if you think morality is anything more than a subjective viewpoint. It can be warped to fit any ideals of any individual so long as they are capable of thinking in the first place. It's a construct of humanity, not the universe. Remember, we are insignificant dots in the middle of what may very well be infinity, existing as the entire species for what is not even a blink on the universal scale of time. We will fade from the memory of all things just as quickly as we came to be- along with our petty subjective views. Neither are our opinions nor our very bodies absolutes.
The main difference to note however is the nature of morality and how it changes. It is most likely just a chemical compound by neuroscience, but what sets apart the common man from a member of the SS in 1940? Or even better, what can you do to turn a loving family member into a raving madman with a bloodied knife?
There most definitely is a disagreement. But you're clearly not going to accept that with your, frankly disgusting, viewpoint.
Wyzilla wrote: There is zero advantage to using such labor over robotic work lines or paid labor. Slave labor is done at a loss, and undercuts the economy.
They would become robotic labour, my man. That's what 'wetware' implies.
Learn2Mars
Organic robots are utterly useless as a workforce. They decay as DNA Telomeres erode, organs fail, blood clots, etc. They require constant maintenance in the form of a medical doctor along with a constant supply of varied nutrients including sunlight. Meanwhile with a robotic arm on an assembly line, you forget about it for a month before coming in later to check hydraulics, change a couple gears maybe, and plug it back in before forgetting about it for another month.
Nothing in 40K is applicable to reality.
You say wetware would suck because it needs maintenance, and then admit (in your next line) current robots need maintenance?
Not really convincing me there.
One requires constant, daily maintenance, regular checkups, and stands a very large chance of simply falling over and dying for good. The other you only have to check up on occasionally and if something breaks, you just swap out parts. Plus robotic assembly-line arms don't need food or exercise.
And again, slave labor is bad for the economy. The South before the Civil War would have made better profits had they turned their slaves into minimum wage workers. Slave labor is more expensive than cheap labor.
Wyzilla wrote: One requires constant, daily maintenance, regular checkups, and stands a very large chance of simply falling over and dying for good. The other you only have to check up on occasionally and if something breaks, you just swap out parts. Plus robotic assembly-line arms don't need food or exercise.
Both of them require daily maintenance, and robot assembly lines can't march into war with guns on their arms. Check and mate.
Wyzilla wrote: And again, slave labor is bad for the economy. The South before the Civil War would have made better profits had they turned their slaves into minimum wage workers. Slave labor is more expensive than cheap labor.
Good thing I'm not talking about slave labour then! Pretty sure servitors don't have independant thought.
timetowaste85 wrote: Without a shadow of a doubt to his guilt? Hang him in public. Cut his arms and legs off first and cauterize the wounds so he doesn't bleed out. Make the bastard suffer. We can't make him feel all the pain and damage he caused to everyone, but we sure as hell can make him feel some of it.
You call it bloodthirsty, I call it justice. When a man murders and blows limbs off of children, he deserves whatever torture humanity can grant before God gets His hands on him.
Biggest mistake this kid and his brother made...They attacked Boston. A city loaded with a bunch of Micks Just like me who get uppity at the first sign of a challenge
The bombing took place about 3 months after a buddy of mine EAS'd and went home to Boston, I immediately called him to see if he had decided to go to the race or not and to see if he was ok. Apparently my buddy along with a decent percentage of Boston citizens went roaming the streets looking for the suspects..... Dont Feth with Boston because they will Feth you right back.
Grey Templar wrote: They plotted to kill and maim people. Not only without any sense of shame, but actual elation in the death and pain they were going to cause.
Which is exactly the approach many people in this thread have to Tsarnaev's execution.
While there is a good argument for the death penalty with this guy, I feel it's encouraging martyrdom. So let him rot in solitary and deny him his place in paradise with all his other 'martyrs'
Grey Templar wrote: They plotted to kill and maim people. Not only without any sense of shame, but actual elation in the death and pain they were going to cause.
Which is exactly the approach many people in this thread have to Tsarnaev's execution.
I think you mistake elation with desire to do what is necessary.
This scumbag needs to be removed from society. Ideally, nobody would do the things that would require such drastic action. But people do, and so we do what must be done.
I think you mistake elation with desire to do what is necessary.
I'm thinking of the people who want to go out of the way to torture him gruesomely and generally fantasise of ways for him to suffer.
If we're talking doing what is necessary, well, it turns out that it's fully possible to keep someone away from the rest of society without killing anyone at all. Norway is doing it to Breivik, for example. The US prison system isn't set up to do this very well though because the point of it is to inflict harm so just killing someone is more merciful than keeping them locked in solitary for the rest of their lives. But that's a specific issue with the US system rather than some general flaw with imprisonment or closed care.
I think you mistake elation with desire to do what is necessary.
I'm thinking of the people who want to go out of the way to torture him gruesomely and generally fantasise of ways for him to suffer.
If we're talking doing what is necessary, well, it turns out that it's fully possible to keep someone away from the rest of society without killing anyone at all. Norway is doing it to Breivik, for example. The US prison system isn't set up to do this very well though because the point of it is to inflict harm so just killing someone is more merciful than keeping them locked in solitary for the rest of their lives. But that's a specific issue with the US system rather than some general flaw with imprisonment or closed care.
Breivik's case is actually an example of someone who needs to get executed, but what happens when that isn't allowed by the system. The truly terrible thing is that he's always eligible for sentencing review, and I don't trust that it isn't impossible that a future court 30-40 years down the line won't decide he's been sufficiently rehabilitated to allow parole. You say it'll never happen, but its possible with the system. And that is morally reprehensible.
Plus the fact he is still alive lets him stand as an inspiration for people who are sympathetic to his cause, and he hasn't been made an example of.
All it says is that, no matter what horrible thing you do at worst we'll toss you in a nice comfortable facility where your every need is met and cared for for the rest of your life.
Grey Templar wrote: Breivik's case is actually an example of someone who needs to get executed, but what happens when that isn't allowed by the system. The truly terrible thing is that he's always eligible for sentencing review, and I don't trust that it isn't impossible that a future court 30-40 years down the line won't decide he's been sufficiently rehabilitated to allow parole. You say it'll never happen, but its possible with the system. And that is morally reprehensible.
If he is actually judged to have bee rehabilitated after 40 years then I'll trust the Norwegian experts involved in that decision. I reject your morality and replace it with my own.
Grey Templar wrote: Plus the fact he is still alive lets him stand as an inspiration for people who are sympathetic to his cause, and he hasn't been made an example of.
All it says is that, no matter what horrible thing you do at worst we'll toss you in a nice comfortable facility where your every need is met and cared for for the rest of your life.
I doubt that anyone who would take after Breivik would care about getting killed. It's hilarious that you claim that he'll be an inspiration by remaining alive when people in this very thread have suggested that killing Tsarnaev would be bad because then he'd become a martyr.
Thats because of their respective causes. Martyrdom is important to Tsarnaev's cause, not particularly to what Breivik's is. The people who would follow Brevik would actually be put off by death.
All it says is that, no matter what horrible thing you do at worst we'll toss you in a nice comfortable facility where your every need is met and cared for for the rest of your life.
And yet Norway has less homicides per capita than the US (2.2 in 2011 for Norway compared to 4.7 in 2012 for the US). 2011 is also the year that Breivik's attack occurred, without that the Norwegian rate falls to 0.6.
So apparently having overcrowded prisons with crap facilities and which completely fail at any measurable rehabilitation programme, along with the possibility of the death penalty, is not a successful deterrent.
In that case I'll take Norways system.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Thats because of their respective causes. Martyrdom is important to Tsarnaev's cause, not particularly to what Breivik's is. The people who would follow Brevik would actually be put off by death.
Either way, they deserve death.
So not only are you capable of psychoanalysing people who may not even exist, you are also capable of accurately determining exactly when someone deserves to die. That's some serious mind-powers
Its not any psychoanalysis. Its simple knowledge of the basic facts regarding their philosophical views.
And really, you can't compare homicide rates between two very different countries. Its like comparing wages between 1850 and 1988 without accounting for inflation.
We have many issues with the US justice system. The fact we have the Death penalty isn't one of them.
Grey Templar wrote: Its not any psychoanalysis. Its simple knowledge of the basic facts regarding their philosophical views.
And really, you can't compare homicide rates between two very different countries. Its like comparing wages between 1850 and 1988 without accounting for inflation.
We have many issues with the US justice system. The fact we have the Death penalty isn't one of them.
So what exactly are their philosophical views?
You implied that having better prisons with higher living standards would in some way encourage people to commit crime or not act as a deterrent to committing a crime. That is false.
And the death penalty, due to the large number of appeals it always faces, is no cheaper than life in prison and no more effective a deterrent.
Add in the possibility of executing an innocent man and, well...
Grey Templar wrote: Its not any psychoanalysis. Its simple knowledge of the basic facts regarding their philosophical views.
And really, you can't compare homicide rates between two very different countries. Its like comparing wages between 1850 and 1988 without accounting for inflation.
We have many issues with the US justice system. The fact we have the Death penalty isn't one of them.
So what exactly are their philosophical views?
You implied that having better prisons with higher living standards would in some way encourage people to commit crime or not act as a deterrent to committing a crime. That is false.
And the death penalty, due to the large number of appeals it always faces, is no cheaper than life in prison and no more effective a deterrent.
Add in the possibility of executing an innocent man and, well...
The death penalty doesn't have to be a deterrent. Its not always about deterring crime, its about punishing it justly.
And really, Brevik getting to live in a cushy prison is even less of a deterrent than executing him. Especially since he's got the not insignificant possibility of getting out. Life without parole would be better in that case.
Prison shouldn't be a nice place. Just for reasons of principle.
The ideal situation would be programs to reduce the root causes of crime(poverty and gang culture) while also making the punishments very steep. That way, you have less of the original cause pushing people into crime AND you have the deterrent of severe punishment.
Yes, there is the risk of executing an innocent person. But its so small that its well worth removing the offenders from society. Thats also why we have high burdens of proof.
On the one hand you speak of punishing crimes justly but then you speak of executing an innocent person as being acceptable as long as it doesn't happen too often.
By the way, peer-reviewed research puts the occurrence of unjust convictions on death row at around 4%, which is quite high when you're talking about the death penalty.
In the case of executing an innocent you have also failed justice twofold. You have killed an innocent person and allowed the real criminal to go free.
Given that very very rarely does someone get sentenced to death in the US, 4% is freakishly rare. Yes, its acceptable.
And the rate is going down with increased advancements in forensics. The declining rate of exonerations is proof of that, especially since every inmate has all the time in the world to appeal and have evidence reexamined.
d-usa wrote: Calls other people evil and accuses them of not having morals, is okay with killing innocent people because it doesn't happen all that much.
Business as usual in the OT.
Its the lesser of two evils.
You either let lots of people get away with murder or have a very very tiny chance of occasionally catching the wrong person. It comes down to numbers.
Grey Templar wrote: Plus the fact he is still alive lets him stand as an inspiration for people who are sympathetic to his cause, and he hasn't been made an example of..
How did the horrifically bloodthirsty example that the Romans made out of Jesus work at deterring the people that are sympathetic to his cause?
The best thing to do with people like this is to lock them away from society for the rest of their natural life. There is always a chance he will repent and denounce his cause.
I mean, Charles Manson was trying to start a Race War. Plenty of potential followers for that cause. Since he has been imprisoned for the last 50 years or so, he has shown through various interviews to be a pathetic coward.
If he had been executed, we would not have this. The fact that he was able to infiltrate high society and instruct others to kill would have elevated him to a legend.
d-usa wrote: Calls other people evil and accuses them of not having morals, is okay with killing innocent people because it doesn't happen all that much.
Business as usual in the OT.
Its the lesser of two evils.
You either let lots of people get away with murder or have a very very tiny chance of occasionally catching the wrong person. It comes down to numbers.
Killing innocent people is murder, and at this point you are pro-murder simply because you refuse to accept any other possibility for punishing murders. By your own definition you are evil and should be executed yourself.
You either let lots of people get away with murder or have a very very tiny chance of occasionally catching the wrong person. It comes down to numbers.
You can sentence people to things other than death.
d-usa wrote: Calls other people evil and accuses them of not having morals, is okay with killing innocent people because it doesn't happen all that much.
Business as usual in the OT.
Its the lesser of two evils.
You either let lots of people get away with murder or have a very very tiny chance of occasionally catching the wrong person. It comes down to numbers.
Are you suffering from some kind of mental trauma affecting the left side of your brain? Not executing people does now "allow them to get away with murder". They're either locked away for life or they're rehabilitated and reintroduced to society as functioning citizens.
How do you even develop this kind of flawed logic? It's a complete Non Sequitur.
Rehabilitating someone and releasing them back into society is the opposite of punishing them. So yes, you have let someone get away with murder in that case.
And I don't appreciate you insulting my mental faculties.
Grey Templar wrote: Rehabilitating someone and releasing them back into society is the opposite of punishing them. So yes, you have let someone get away with murder in that case.
And I don't appreciate you insulting my mental faculties.
They haven't gotten away with murder. They've spent years, possibly decades, in the care of physicians improving their mental state until they're assured they won't go murderhobo on the nearest person.
You really are living in a complete delusional fantasy if you think the death penalty does anything. It does not reduce crime rates- if anything it INCREASES the murder rate. Again, Nordic nations have banned the death penalty and are leagues ahead of America in all departments. They don't have an obscene crime rate or prisoner population. The law does not exist to be some pathetic revenge fantasy of yours. It exists to maintain order. I insult you because you clearly ignore facts to suit your own fictional realm that is not reality.
You say it increases murder, yet that entire graph shows a downward trend over time for every state, death penalty or not. Clearly its not tied to the death penalty.
Also, correlation =/= causation. How do you know that it isn't the other way around and that states with a high murder rate institute the death penalty as a reaction.
States with the death penalty have already shown a willingness to be amoral and evil and have no problem with killing innocent people, maybe that's why more people on those states are fine with being evil and amoral?
Prisons are cushy? Since he is high profile, going out on a limb and assuming he won't be in general population. I hear solitary is all the rage these days.
Honestly, killing this person is a loss. We can really use this man to find out what goes through the head of a person like him. But it won't happen, we are more interested in blood than knowledge. We could find out what makes him tick, what caused him to do these things. Find out if he can be rehabilitated and "fixed". We could use this knowledge to avoid these situations in the future and help the mentally ill like him. We could find out what the signs are for a person going down this path. But all we care about is instant gratification, never thinking ahead to the future.
Da Boss wrote: Grey Templar: I seem to remember you arguing from a Christian POV in previous threads (about rights to access contraceptive medicine, I believe).
But in this thread you seem to be very anti-forgiveness and pro-killing. Have you changed your views?
Oh I like this arguing technique.
It's like the liberals who are so anti-death penalty, but just fine with aborting babies left and right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: Prisons are cushy? Since he is high profile, going out on a limb and assuming he won't be in general population. I hear solitary is all the rage these days.
Honestly, killing this person is a loss. We can really use this man to find out what goes through the head of a person like him. But it won't happen, we are more interested in blood than knowledge. We could find out what makes him tick, what caused him to do these things. Find out if he can be rehabilitated and "fixed". We could use this knowledge to avoid these situations in the future and help the mentally ill like him. We could find out what the signs are for a person going down this path. But all we care about is instant gratification, never thinking ahead to the future.
I'm sure all the anti-death penalty states are working on that right now. It's not like there is a shortage of people like him out there in the system.
Da Boss wrote: Grey Templar: I seem to remember you arguing from a Christian POV in previous threads (about rights to access contraceptive medicine, I believe).
But in this thread you seem to be very anti-forgiveness and pro-killing. Have you changed your views?
Oh I like this arguing technique.
It's like the liberals who are so anti-death penalty, but just fine with aborting babies left and right.
Heh heh heh.
Can't a man ask an honest question without having his motives questioned?
Da Boss wrote: Grey Templar: I seem to remember you arguing from a Christian POV in previous threads (about rights to access contraceptive medicine, I believe).
But in this thread you seem to be very anti-forgiveness and pro-killing. Have you changed your views?
Oh I like this arguing technique.
It's like the liberals who are so anti-death penalty, but just fine with aborting babies left and right.
That would be true if aborting babies was legal. But it is not. Now, you can abort what will one day grow in to a baby, a mass of cells that has no thought, feelings, or emotions of its own. But that's just being picky, right?
Da Boss wrote: Grey Templar: I seem to remember you arguing from a Christian POV in previous threads (about rights to access contraceptive medicine, I believe).
But in this thread you seem to be very anti-forgiveness and pro-killing. Have you changed your views?
Oh I like this arguing technique.
It's like the liberals who are so anti-death penalty, but just fine with aborting babies left and right.
Heh heh heh.
Can't a man ask an honest question without having his motives questioned?
Da Boss wrote: Grey Templar: I seem to remember you arguing from a Christian POV in previous threads (about rights to access contraceptive medicine, I believe).
But in this thread you seem to be very anti-forgiveness and pro-killing. Have you changed your views?
Oh I like this arguing technique.
It's like the liberals who are so anti-death penalty, but just fine with aborting babies left and right.
That would be true if aborting babies was legal. But it is not. Now, you can abort what will one day grow in to a baby, a mass of cells that has no thought, feelings, or emotions of its own. But that's just being picky, right?
Given that most abortions happen well after the development of nervous tissue, you are wrong about it having no thought.
But that shouldn't matter. Its still a human baby, no matter how small. And its innocent. Someone who participated in an act of mass murder isn't.
djones520 wrote: It's like the liberals who are so anti-death penalty, but just fine with aborting babies left and right.
Really?
So in your mind liberals are just on a non-stop roller-coaster ride of fething and aborting babies? What an absurd position formed from the worst stereotypes of the left.
Liberals who are pro-choice, among whom I identify, do not eagerly seek out abortions, nor do we desire to see more abortions in the world. We simply desire for women to have the choice to choose such a procedure if it is necessary. Liberals also typically advocate for sexual education as well as reproductive rights, so that people can understand how the body functions and make more informed decisions which will (hopefully) prevent the need for abortions down the road. But given what you think of abortions, I bet you find sex education to just be a process of indoctrinating children into sexual deviancy, right? Instead, the highly successful abstinence only education is the way to go. Am I right? Or am I just making generalizations based on stereotypes from the fringes of the religious right? I hope that isn't the case, because I'd be a real douche for doing that.
djones520 wrote: It's like the liberals who are so anti-death penalty, but just fine with aborting babies left and right.
Really?
So in your mind liberals are just on a non-stop roller-coaster ride of fething and aborting babies? What an absurd position formed from the worst stereotypes of the left.
Liberals who are pro-choice, among whom I identify, do not eagerly seek out abortions, nor do we desire to see more abortions in the world. We simply desire for women to have the choice to choose such a procedure if it is necessary. Liberals also typically advocate for sexual education as well as reproductive rights, so that people can understand how the body functions and make more informed decisions which will (hopefully) prevent the need for abortions down the road. But given what you think of abortions, I bet you find sex education to just be a process of indoctrinating children into sexual deviancy, right? Instead, the highly successful abstinence only education is the way to go. Am I right? Or am I just making generalizations based on stereotypes from the fringes of the religious right? I hope that isn't the case, because I'd be a real douche for doing that.
The thread should have been locked when we had the mental disconnect between "murders are amoral and evil and should be killed" and "it's okay that innocent people get murdered by the state because it's not that many of them".
Sigvatr wrote: Just read that he got the death sentence.
I highly applaud the sentence, the sooner we get rid of that animal, the better.
Good job.
Exalted my friend.
While I agree that in many situations it is the better choice to send him to prison to rehabilitate the criminal....in this case it is not. A mass murderer who is clearly beyond any doubt guilty of his actions and who has shown no remorse is deserving of a death sentence. His punishment is the removal of him and his genetic legacy from this earth, He hasn't earned the right to be rehabilitated and sent back out into the public,what he has earned is a death sentence.
Someone who willingly plants bombs behind 8 year old children and who will never be able to prove his innocence because of the sheer amount of evidence against him should be pushed to the front of the line and fast tracked to his death sentence.
Dreadwinter wrote: Prisons are cushy? Since he is high profile, going out on a limb and assuming he won't be in general population. I hear solitary is all the rage these days.
Honestly, killing this person is a loss. We can really use this man to find out what goes through the head of a person like him. But it won't happen, we are more interested in blood than knowledge. We could find out what makes him tick, what caused him to do these things. Find out if he can be rehabilitated and "fixed". We could use this knowledge to avoid these situations in the future and help the mentally ill like him. We could find out what the signs are for a person going down this path. But all we care about is instant gratification, never thinking ahead to the future.
I'm sure all the anti-death penalty states are working on that right now. It's not like there is a shortage of people like him out there in the system.
Not a lot of young high profile domestic terrorists out there.
Dreadwinter wrote: Prisons are cushy? Since he is high profile, going out on a limb and assuming he won't be in general population. I hear solitary is all the rage these days.
Honestly, killing this person is a loss. We can really use this man to find out what goes through the head of a person like him. But it won't happen, we are more interested in blood than knowledge. We could find out what makes him tick, what caused him to do these things. Find out if he can be rehabilitated and "fixed". We could use this knowledge to avoid these situations in the future and help the mentally ill like him. We could find out what the signs are for a person going down this path. But all we care about is instant gratification, never thinking ahead to the future.
I'm sure all the anti-death penalty states are working on that right now. It's not like there is a shortage of people like him out there in the system.
Not a lot of young high profile domestic terrorists out there.
After years of study (minutes) i have come to the conclusion that what causes these "young domestic terrorists" is radicalized Islam, that teaches idiots that by killing innocent civilians you are granted access to heaven upon your death.
A better question would be why the leaders of the Islamic faith haven't stepped forward more often to condemn these religiously motivated attacks. At some point we as a group are going to have to realize that they aren't condemning the attacks because they support them. Radical Islam is a scary beast my friends.
Isn't all the fighting going on in the Middle East coming from those who condemn radical Islam, though? You have Muslims over there putting their bodies and lives on the line in condemnation.
Relapse wrote: Isn't all the fighting going on in the Middle East coming from those who condemn radical Islam, though? You have Muslims over there putting their bodies and lives on the line in condemnation.
Close but not all the way, its closer to one version fighting another version because they don't believe the same thing. A lot of the ISIS attacks and operations has a lot to do with tribal politics and affiliations. There's a reason the uprising started where it did. Don't get me wrong, a large percentage of Muslims don't feel that way, its unfortunately a rather large minority that do.
After years of study (minutes) i have come to the conclusion that what causes these "young domestic terrorists" is radicalized Islam, that teaches idiots that by killing innocent civilians you are granted access to heaven upon your death.
A better question would be why the leaders of the Islamic faith haven't stepped forward more often to condemn these religiously motivated attacks. At some point we as a group are going to have to realize that they aren't condemning the attacks because they support them. Radical Islam is a scary beast my friends.
All of them are a direct result of radical Islam? Strange, I thought McVeigh had other motives. I'm glad we have experts here that are truly looking out for future generations with their great wealth of experience.
Dreadwinter wrote: Prisons are cushy? Since he is high profile, going out on a limb and assuming he won't be in general population. I hear solitary is all the rage these days.
Honestly, killing this person is a loss. We can really use this man to find out what goes through the head of a person like him. But it won't happen, we are more interested in blood than knowledge. We could find out what makes him tick, what caused him to do these things. Find out if he can be rehabilitated and "fixed". We could use this knowledge to avoid these situations in the future and help the mentally ill like him. We could find out what the signs are for a person going down this path. But all we care about is instant gratification, never thinking ahead to the future.
I'm sure all the anti-death penalty states are working on that right now. It's not like there is a shortage of people like him out there in the system.
Not a lot of young high profile domestic terrorists out there.
After years of study (minutes) i have come to the conclusion that what causes these "young domestic terrorists" is radicalized Islam, that teaches idiots that by killing innocent civilians you are granted access to heaven upon your death.
That's certainly a very simple and convenient viewpoint. It'd be pretty easy to verify one way or the other if we had some kind of historical record that could show if any mass-killings of civilians predate Islam or not. Shame we don't have anything like that.
After years of study (minutes) i have come to the conclusion that what causes these "young domestic terrorists" is radicalized Islam, that teaches idiots that by killing innocent civilians you are granted access to heaven upon your death.
A better question would be why the leaders of the Islamic faith haven't stepped forward more often to condemn these religiously motivated attacks. At some point we as a group are going to have to realize that they aren't condemning the attacks because they support them. Radical Islam is a scary beast my friends.
All of them are a direct result of radical Islam? Strange, I thought McVeigh had other motives. I'm glad we have experts here that are truly looking out for future generations with their great wealth of experience.
After years of study (minutes) i have come to the conclusion that what causes these "young domestic terrorists" is radicalized Islam, that teaches idiots that by killing innocent civilians you are granted access to heaven upon your death.
A better question would be why the leaders of the Islamic faith haven't stepped forward more often to condemn these religiously motivated attacks. At some point we as a group are going to have to realize that they aren't condemning the attacks because they support them. Radical Islam is a scary beast my friends.
All of them are a direct result of radical Islam? Strange, I thought McVeigh had other motives. I'm glad we have experts here that are truly looking out for future generations with their great wealth of experience.
Ghazkuul wrote:I guess I assumed to much to think you guys would just put this specific threads topic together with what I said. But twist away
I was going to post response but I want to see how far the ball gets carried.
Then don't just post a spammy response if you have nothing Jihadin, better to just stay quiet until you have something to contribute rather than quote a few things followed by "I have nothing to post"
motyak wrote: Then don't just post a spammy response if you have nothing Jihadin, better to just stay quiet until you have something to contribute rather than quote a few things followed by "I have nothing to post"
Further off topic posts have since been removed.
Ever thought some posters might be capable to point out a "issue" before it gets out of hand? Are MOD's the only ones to "point" out possible violations? I saw the direction a couple posters were heading and drew attention to it to check themselves. Since I'm getting the red written warning for drawing attention to a flare up I am attempting to stop I shall let it go in the future. I will "stay in my lane"
DarkTraveler777 wrote: So in your mind liberals are just on a non-stop roller-coaster ride of fething and aborting babies?
I wish. Not for the abortion, though .
I just love rollercasters! Woohoo, so fast, with all the looping and stuff!
Jihadin wrote: Ever thought some posters might be capable to point out a "issue" before it gets out of hand? Are MOD's the only ones to "point" out possible violations? I saw the direction a couple posters were heading and drew attention to it to check themselves. Since I'm getting the red written warning for drawing attention to a flare up I am attempting to stop I shall let it go in the future. I will "stay in my lane"
I think you are supposed to just hit the yellow triangle and let the mod do the moderation job.
On topic, I think no punishment could have stopped that guy, but in general, certainty of punishment trumps severity of punishment as a deterrent by far. If you know you are going to get caught and suffer the punishment, it acts as a deterrent. If the punishment is terrible, but you think you can avoid it altogether by being smarter, then you do not care.
