#61 ·
Just try putting yourself in those shoes for a second. Imagine having a noose around your neck with maybe two minutes left to live... Does it really not bother you?
Home › Society › Philosophy ›
Saddam Hussein: Hanging or firing squad?
Saddam Hussein: Hanging or firing squad?
Started by swiftcobra15 · · 👁 7 views · 76 replies
#62 ·
It’s not even about Saddam Hussein anymore—it’s more about the whole concept of the death penalty itself
#63 ·
Robin Torres2 said:Just try putting yourself in those shoes for a second. Imagine having a noose around your neck with maybe two minutes left to live... Does it really not bother you?
How incredibly enlightening!🤣
Now why don't you put yourself in the shoes of someone being butchered to death by that very same violent maniac?
Just imagine—two minutes before your final breath hits.
Does that still seem inconsequential to you?
#64 ·
Austin Roberts8 said:Fine, I’ll play your game. If you want to answer my points with nothing but a bunch of circular, useless questions, let's go. What exactly is "justice" to you? Who gets to decide? Who’s sitting in judgment? Is that judge actually fair or objective? And what’s the point of punishment anyway—is it about retribution, rehabilitation, or just a way to scare others into staying in line?
You completely missed the point of the example I gave. If the death penalty were an actual institutional reality, there would be some kind of psychological deterrent in place for everyone—including the occasional psycho. You’re obsessing over the actions of one psycho as if we have fifty of them running around every single day committing mass murders together. That’s a terrible argument because you're generalizing based on an event that happens once in a blue moon.
I’ve said it five thousand times already: you CANNOT punish him. The scale of his crimes is simply beyond the scope of any legal punishment. His death isn't a sentence; it's just removing a sick individual from the face of the earth.
I’m not even going to touch that last part because you clearly read it in some sociology textbook that sounds great on paper but fails miserably in the real world. And describing revenge as this infinite cycle is just pure stupidity. If you kill my sister, I kill you, and that’s that—it’s over.
As for your first question, the answer is that it depends. Depending on how massive the crime was, it could be all three of those things or just one. It all comes down to the scale of what they did.
🙏 Exactly!
Irredeemable, incurable killers
need to be wiped off the face of the earth!
If their victims had the chance to speak, they’d say the exact same thing!
We are fighting for the right to life of the people who will become victims tomorrow!
#65 ·
If their victims actually had a voice in all this, they’d be saying the exact same thing.
That just isn't true.
edit: It would only be true if we didn't have things like love, empathy, and forgiveness—if we weren't human to begin with.
edit2: Killers are often deeply disturbed, unbalanced, and sick people—and sick people need treatment, not execution.
#66 ·
Taylor Campbell4 said:If their victims actually had a voice in all this, they’d be saying the exact same thing.
That just isn't true.
edit: It would only be true if we didn't have things like love, empathy, and forgiveness—if we weren't human to begin with.
edit2: Killers are often deeply disturbed, unbalanced, and sick people—and sick people need treatment, not execution.
🤣
Oh, please. How could you say that? A young woman, brutally murdered, violated, her life stolen against her will—do you honestly think she'd say, "I love you because you inflicted such unspeakable agony upon me," or "Thank you for taking away the future I actually wanted"?
Get your head out of the clouds! Even Bog punished those who were beyond saving (think Sodom and Gomorrah). He didn't label them "sick" and send them to therapy. And the story of Lot proves there was a foundation for forgiveness, but it had limits.
God forbid, but what if it were your own child? What if they were tortured and killed by some irredeemable, incurable maniac—someone you knew could destroy even more children tomorrow if left free? Would you really give that monster a brotherly kiss and wish him well?
I suspect you'd have a very different opinion then!
#67 ·
I honestly don't see how this discussion holds any water when we're just basing everything on our own hypothetical reactions to imaginary scenarios.
BTW, I’m actually in the middle of translating a book right now about this young woman whose entire family—three brothers, her father, and her mother—was wiped out during a genocide. She loved them more than anything, yet she managed to completely forgive every single one of the killers. And here you are, preaching about how anyone who wishes death upon others will be punished by Bog! What happens if someone wishes death upon an innocent person who was wrongly accused? Given the statistics, those cases happen more often than you'd think. Thoughts have consequences too, not just actions—and thoughts are, well, events in their own right; they have an impact. Even physics suggests through various experiments that our thoughts can influence matter...
PS: And Bog, naturally, doesn't punish anyone. 🙂
BTW, I’m actually in the middle of translating a book right now about this young woman whose entire family—three brothers, her father, and her mother—was wiped out during a genocide. She loved them more than anything, yet she managed to completely forgive every single one of the killers. And here you are, preaching about how anyone who wishes death upon others will be punished by Bog! What happens if someone wishes death upon an innocent person who was wrongly accused? Given the statistics, those cases happen more often than you'd think. Thoughts have consequences too, not just actions—and thoughts are, well, events in their own right; they have an impact. Even physics suggests through various experiments that our thoughts can influence matter...
PS: And Bog, naturally, doesn't punish anyone. 🙂
#68 ·
Taylor Campbell4 said:I honestly don't see how this discussion holds any water when we're just basing everything on our own hypothetical reactions to imaginary scenarios.
BTW, I’m actually in the middle of translating a book right now about this young woman whose entire family—three brothers, her father, and her mother—was wiped out during a genocide. She loved them more than anything, yet she managed to completely forgive every single one of the killers. And here you are, preaching about how anyone who wishes death upon others will be punished by Bog! What happens if someone wishes death upon an innocent person who was wrongly accused? Given the statistics, those cases happen more often than you'd think. Thoughts have consequences too, not just actions—and thoughts are, well, events in their own right; they have an impact. Even physics suggests through various experiments that our thoughts can influence matter...
PS: And Bog, naturally, doesn't punish anyone. 🙂
Everyone draws conclusions based on their own perspective—you aren't some special exception here! No one can judge without bias unless they've actually lived through a similar situation. That's why your arguments and mine are equally biased. But hey, I get to keep my opinion, and you get to keep yours! If we're going to nitpick every little detail, neither of us is going to be "right."
The point here isn't that we were discussing the innocent!
We were talking about criminals!
And far too often, people act as devil's advocates until those very criminals are declared innocent!
Personally, I don't wish death on anyone, but I firmly believe that: everyone has a right to life! Those who usurp that right—repeatedly—should be eliminated.
PS
And stop making threats in the name of God!
Who HE chooses to punish is known only to HIM!
#69 ·
Quincy Jones:
I wasn't unaware; I just expressed my thoughts more clearly back then.
And I don't think our biases are equal, mainly because I've provided actual arguments while you're relying entirely on your own hypotheses. For instance, I mentioned a specific woman, and I even have a friend whose father was involved in an incident over in Warsaw—it's the same principle.
There are plenty of counterarguments that completely debunk your logic, especially since you're implying you know exactly what a deceased person would think about this issue just to fuel a sense of vengeance—all to justify your own retaliatory mindset and lack of understanding.
(I apologize if I'm not being diplomatic enough to lead you to the conclusion yourself—perhaps if I let us arrive at the realization together, we might actually get somewhere, rather than you just digging your heels in like this.)
Quincy Jones:
Since the legal system isn't perfect in any country, we technically couldn't debate the death penalty at all, right? We could never be 100% certain that someone wouldn't be wrongfully convicted. So, do we just ignore the risk entirely?
PS: If you're actually advocating for someone to be eliminated, then you're essentially calling for a death. It's better to just admit that instead of trying to hide behind wordplay.
PPS: Go back and read the PS in my previous post.
| Everyone judges based on their own perspective—you’re no exception here. No one can truly assess a situation without bias unless they've actually lived through it themselves. That’s why both your arguments and mine carry the same level of subjectivity. |
And I don't think our biases are equal, mainly because I've provided actual arguments while you're relying entirely on your own hypotheses. For instance, I mentioned a specific woman, and I even have a friend whose father was involved in an incident over in Warsaw—it's the same principle.
There are plenty of counterarguments that completely debunk your logic, especially since you're implying you know exactly what a deceased person would think about this issue just to fuel a sense of vengeance—all to justify your own retaliatory mindset and lack of understanding.
(I apologize if I'm not being diplomatic enough to lead you to the conclusion yourself—perhaps if I let us arrive at the realization together, we might actually get somewhere, rather than you just digging your heels in like this.)
Quincy Jones:
| We aren't discussing the innocent here! |
PS: If you're actually advocating for someone to be eliminated, then you're essentially calling for a death. It's better to just admit that instead of trying to hide behind wordplay.
PPS: Go back and read the PS in my previous post.
#70 ·
Taylor Campbell4 said:Quincy Jones:I wasn't unaware; I just expressed my thoughts more clearly back then.
Everyone judges based on their own perspective—you’re no exception here. No one can truly assess a situation without bias unless they've actually lived through it themselves. That’s why both your arguments and mine carry the same level of subjectivity.
And I don't think our biases are equal, mainly because I've provided actual arguments while you're relying entirely on your own hypotheses. For instance, I mentioned a specific woman, and I even have a friend whose father was involved in an incident over in Warsaw—it's the same principle.
There are plenty of counterarguments that completely debunk your logic, especially since you're implying you know exactly what a deceased person would think about this issue just to fuel a sense of vengeance—all to justify your own retaliatory mindset and lack of understanding.
(I apologize if I'm not being diplomatic enough to lead you to the conclusion yourself—perhaps if I let us arrive at the realization together, we might actually get somewhere, rather than you just digging your heels in like this.)
Quincy Jones:Since the legal system isn't perfect in any country, we technically couldn't debate the death penalty at all, right? We could never be 100% certain that someone wouldn't be wrongfully convicted. So, do we just ignore the risk entirely?
We aren't discussing the innocent here!
PS: If you're actually advocating for someone to be eliminated, then you're essentially calling for a death. It's better to just admit that instead of trying to hide behind wordplay.
PPS: Go back and read the PS in my previous post.
I'm done bickering with you—it’s a waste of breath since nothing productive comes of it. Your claims are completely nonsensical, and you have a knack for twisting them to favor the wrongly accused. However, I will address your bolded point:
We can be certain (often, if not always) when a maniac PERSONALLY CONFESSES TO THEIR CRIMES AND ACTUALLY TAKES PRIDE IN THEM!
Later! 🤣
#71 ·
The death penalty isn't even the best outcome for the victim, let alone for some war criminal.
A mind like that operates on a completely different frequency. They aren't like your run-of-the-mill killer who snaps out of jealousy or greed; there’s no common ground to be found there.
They will always—even at the deepest, most subconscious level—manufacture an excuse for the atrocities they've committed.
A mind like that operates on a completely different frequency. They aren't like your run-of-the-mill killer who snaps out of jealousy or greed; there’s no common ground to be found there.
They will always—even at the deepest, most subconscious level—manufacture an excuse for the atrocities they've committed.
#72 ·
I honestly think he needs to be tormented—not in a literal sense, obviously, but he should be forced to face everyone whose family or loved ones he took from them. He should have to look them in the eye and apologize. Of course, saying sorry might not mean much to those families at this point, but it would be an absolute nightmare for him. I don't see the point in just killing him off; what good is a dead man? Instead, we should put him to work. Make him scrub toilets or something equally degrading. Let him actually be useful for once instead of just being gone.
#73 ·
He represents a repressive regime that was ultimately toppled by another one using military force.
Now, more people are dying in Iraq than ever during the Saddam era,
and there's no end in sight to this cycle of bloodshed.
The Iraqi people have lost so much, while Americans just walked away with cheap oil...
Let’s assume for a moment that Saddam is undeniably guilty—that he committed atrocities—and we stop debating his crimes altogether.
The real question remains: did those who removed him actually do good or evil?
Can violence truly be used to achieve a righteous end? Is it ever "good" to destroy an enemy?
The real question remains: did those who removed him actually do good or evil?
Can violence truly be used to achieve a righteous end? Is it ever "good" to destroy an enemy?
#74 ·
swiftcobra15 said:Let’s assume for a moment that Saddam is undeniably guilty—that he committed atrocities—and we stop debating his crimes altogether.
The real question remains: did those who removed him actually do good or evil?
Can violence truly be used to achieve a righteous end? Is it ever "good" to destroy an enemy?
Removing a brutal dictator is fine in theory, BUT...
it turns out everything in Iraq went downhill fast after the coalition intervention. So, looking at the fallout, they didn't do any good.
And they didn't do good based on their methods or goals either. Their approach was hypocritical and deceptive, while their actual objectives were purely self-serving. 😁
Is it "good" to destroy an enemy?
I'd say it's a necessity rather than a "good" thing. An enemy denies your very existence and your core values at the most fundamental level. What else can you do besides try to crush them or at least neutralize the threat?🤷
Besides, the war in Iraq wasn't about a real enemy. It was a manufactured conflict used to justify seizing a region that was strategically and economically vital.
I have more thoughts on the concept of enmity, but I'll stop there before I go too far off-topic.
#75 ·
frozenotter232 said:Removing a brutal dictator is fine in theory, BUT...
it turns out everything in Iraq went downhill fast after the coalition intervention. So, looking at the fallout, they didn't do any good.
And they didn't do good based on their methods or goals either. Their approach was hypocritical and deceptive, while their actual objectives were purely self-serving. 😁Is it "good" to destroy an enemy?
I'd say it's a necessity rather than a "good" thing. An enemy denies your very existence and your core values at the most fundamental level. What else can you do besides try to crush them or at least neutralize the threat?🤷
Besides, the war in Iraq wasn't about a real enemy. It was a manufactured conflict used to justify seizing a region that was strategically and economically vital.
I have more thoughts on the concept of enmity, but I'll stop there before I go too far off-topic.
By saying that, you’re just dodging the actual question. ("Let's say Saddam Hussein is undeniably guilty.")
The reality is that they committed nothing but evil. It’s like the old saying goes: one wrong is simply replaced by something far worse.
Bureaucrat. As I mentioned earlier...
I wouldn't go so far as to say it’s actually good; I think "necessary" is a much more accurate way to put it.
Why take such a narrow view? Is it really impossible to turn an enemy into a friend?
Or at least someone who won't cause you harm. Why should destruction be the only way out? 😕
#76 ·
swiftcobra15 said:By saying that, you’re just dodging the actual question. ("Let's say Saddam Hussein is undeniably guilty.")
The reality is that they committed nothing but evil. It’s like the old saying goes: one wrong is simply replaced by something far worse.Bureaucrat. As I mentioned earlier...
I wouldn't go so far as to say it’s actually good; I think "necessary" is a much more accurate way to put it.
Why take such a narrow view? Is it really impossible to turn an enemy into a friend?
Or at least someone who won't cause you harm. Why should destruction be the only way out? 😕
I'm sticking to my answer. Take it or leave it. 😉
swiftcobra15 said:By saying that, you’re just dodging the actual question. ("Let's say Saddam Hussein is undeniably guilty.")
The reality is that they committed nothing but evil. It’s like the old saying goes: one wrong is simply replaced by something far worse.Bureaucrat. As I mentioned earlier...
I wouldn't go so far as to say it’s actually good; I think "necessary" is a much more accurate way to put it.
Why take such a narrow view? Is it really impossible to turn an enemy into a friend?
Or at least someone who won't cause you harm. Why should destruction be the only way out? 😕
It isn't the only way. That's why I used the word 'neutralizing.'
As for this "narrow-mindedness" and turning enemies into friends—I'm not so sure. Look at a real ideological conflict: liberals versus fascists.
Liberals stand for things like human dignity, untouchable individual rights, checks and balances on government power, the freedom to seek truth, and free speech. Fascists, on the other hand, don't just hold different views; they champion values that are the direct opposite of liberal ones. These are two political worldviews that are fundamentally incompatible. It’s not just theoretical; it plays out practically because their visions for how a society should function are mutually exclusive. There's no room for both. If they exist in the same country, one side inevitably ends up operating outside the law.
So, can you imagine liberals and fascists becoming friends? Could a liberal turn a fascist into a buddy, or vice versa? Maybe, if one of them converts first. But that's not what we're talking about. The question is whether they can be friends while remaining true to themselves. In my view, that's impossible.
Reading your posts, I've gathered that you belong to the 'anti-fascist camp.' Would you ever actually be friends with a fascist?
(Fine, I went off-topic, but that's on you. 😛)
#77 ·
frozenotter232 said:I'm sticking to my answer. Take it or leave it. 😉
It isn't the only way. That's why I used the word 'neutralizing.'
As for this "narrow-mindedness" and turning enemies into friends—I'm not so sure. Look at a real ideological conflict: liberals versus fascists.
Liberals stand for things like human dignity, untouchable individual rights, checks and balances on government power, the freedom to seek truth, and free speech. Fascists, on the other hand, don't just hold different views; they champion values that are the direct opposite of liberal ones. These are two political worldviews that are fundamentally incompatible. It’s not just theoretical; it plays out practically because their visions for how a society should function are mutually exclusive. There's no room for both. If they exist in the same country, one side inevitably ends up operating outside the law.
So, can you imagine liberals and fascists becoming friends? Could a liberal turn a fascist into a buddy, or vice versa? Maybe, if one of them converts first. But that's not what we're talking about. The question is whether they can be friends while remaining true to themselves. In my view, that's impossible.
Reading your posts, I've gathered that you belong to the 'anti-fascist camp.' Would you ever actually be friends with a fascist?
(Fine, I went off-topic, but that's on you. 😛)
I think we had a bit of a misunderstanding. I was talking about conflicts between nations.
The Americans committed a terrible atrocity when they invaded Iraq, hurting all its people.
If their goal had really been to take out Saddam Hussein, they could have done it easily. They were after the oil.
Of course I can't be friends with a fascist.
To me, they aren't even human—they're more like sub-human entities that desperately need (re)socialization.
The Americans committed a terrible atrocity when they invaded Iraq, hurting all its people.
If their goal had really been to take out Saddam Hussein, they could have done it easily. They were after the oil.
Of course I can't be friends with a fascist.
To me, they aren't even human—they're more like sub-human entities that desperately need (re)socialization.
🔗 Similar threads
- Pre-season vibes and squad depth in Fans · Jul 30, 2026
- The frustration of watching your squad get gutted in Fans · Jul 30, 2026
- Is squad depth actually more important than individual superstars? in Fans · Jul 30, 2026
- The scouting game is changing in Martial Arts & Combat Sports · Jul 30, 2026
- The "Changing Allegiances" debate in competitive sports in Fans · Jul 30, 2026