Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: wrag on August 22, 2004, 10:49:10 AM
-
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=80
-
suprised you didnt post this one instead:-
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=15
-
I.I.P.
-
Ok so what crime was it she supposedly commited to land her in court to begin with?
-
Originally posted by Furball
suprised you didnt post this one instead:-
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=15
Surprised??? Why would I post something about the French?
The 2 news items don't compare???
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Ok so what crime was it she supposedly commited to land her in court to begin with?
Not really sure.......
but thought her judge said she was punished for having spoken out?
Looked like he went out of his way to see her excuted?
-
suprised you didnt post this one instead:-
How does this have anything to do with the original post?
-
Originally posted by parker00
How does this have anything to do with the original post?
I noticed that too. Still waiting for an answer.
-
imo I cant think of a better reason to invade them now.
:mad: :mad: :mad:
-
Hooray! another bloodbath! Let's invade Iran!
oh OIO...honestly... there are much greater injustices going on around the world, you just don't hear about them. And is the USA and Britain supposed to right all of them by force of arms?
Ravs
-
Someone should, and if the only ones with the drive to do it are the US and the UK, so be it.
-
And after that Lizking? And after the next one?
Ravs
-
So then Ravells, we should just give up and allw evil to spread?
-
Originally posted by ravells
Hooray! another bloodbath! Let's invade Iran!
oh OIO...honestly... there are much greater injustices going on around the world, you just don't hear about them. And is the USA and Britain supposed to right all of them by force of arms?
Ravs
Let's just get together in the park, smoke some pot, sing Cumbaya and maybe everything will go away by istelf.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Let's just get together in the park, smoke some pot, sing Cumbaya and maybe everything will go away by istelf.
Spead the love to Iran through the power of music! Yeah baby, yeah!
-
Very unfortunate. Sometimes it takes a few 5.56mm to stop religious zealots from killing their own.
-
Originally posted by Furball
suprised you didnt post this one instead:-
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=15
Theres another French enterprize losing a bunch of money when we invade iran.....
-
I wonder did the French ever learn from their nazi guests about how bad abuses of human rights are? Because, when it comes to not supporting evil US policy, you know the French, and other euros, always say about how much WW2 taught them about the true horrors of war.. I guess these lessons dont apply to French foreign policy or business moves.
Europe is morally bankrupt and the more they whine about the USA the more hypocritical they become..
But you know me I'm just a simple minded American..
But Frahnse iiiis, uhhhm, how do saye, sophisticated..
:rofl
-
At least as sophisticated as Halliburton, Conoco-Phillips and General Electric.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by GScholz
What right does any outsider have to dictate how a country runs its legal system? She was found guilty of a crime and punished according to their laws. Currently only five countries are known to have carried out child executions (below the age of 18) since 2000: China, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Pakistan ... and the USA.
Over 70 child offenders are currently under sentence of death in the USA. The federal government and 16 of the 38 US states whose laws retain the death penalty exclude its use against child offenders. However, three states: Oklahoma, Texas and Virginia, have executed child offenders since 2000.
So ... who are you to judge the Iranians? Who is morrally bankrupt?
The UN is attempting to do that, no? Isnt that what they do in everyones dear little court in Den Haaaaag, trying the citizens of other countries... :)
-
The USA does not execute younger convicts for being the (my guess is) victim of a sexual assault or for having a "sharp tongue". If you can't see the difference there is no reason to continue talking.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The UN and the IWCT are two separate organisations. The UN is forbidden to interfere in a sovereign nations internal affairs unless it presents a threat to world peace.
Ok, I trust you to be up on the partularties of UN style one-worlders pushy interfearence in other countries legal systems..
BTW this bpard is getting waay to serious!
The information in this post may have errors; it is not permissible to be used by anyone who has ever met a lawyer.
;)
-
Is it any entity's place to dictate laws of an independant nation?
-
Gscholz give me a break America does not put to death children,I for one resent the blank...blank...grossness of that statement.
What right does any outsider have to judge anothers actions...Oh yes more proof of europes on going egalitarian views that led to a 100 million deaths in the last century. Yep better get those furnaces going again cant judge actions so time to burn some more jews and christians.
Hey all you liberals out there that cant make judgements,time to invest in poison stocks, I think you going to make a lot of money in the next ten years.
Europe is morally bankrupt, but no one again will listen, and the hell the world will have to go thru is going to be outrageous.
Btw I know what furball is trying to say and I bet you all do too.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Gscholz give me a break America does not put to death children,I for one resent the blank...blank...grossness of that statement.
What right does any outsider have to judge anothers actions...Oh yes more proof of europes on going egalitarian views that led to a 100 million deaths in the last century. Yep better get those furnaces going again cant judge actions so time to burn some more jews and christians.
Hey all you liberals out there that cant make judgements,time to invest in poison stocks, I think you going to make a lot of money in the next ten years.
Europe is morally bankrupt, but no one again will listen, and the hell the world will have to go thru is going to be outrageous.
Btw I know what furball is trying to say and I bet you all do too.
There are currently 79 people on death row who committed their crime as juveniles. We may not kill kids, we just hold them in jail untill they are adults. Not much difference.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
In my opinion: No. Not unless they have a contractual obligation to do so, i.e. a treaty.
So you support my stance against the USA joining that awful assembly of thrid world despotic nations (Zimbabwe, Syria, France etc) who would try brave US soldiers and diplomats on politicaly motivated trumped up warcrimes charges?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes you do.
(http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/juveniles/gallery/images/3.jpg)
Sean Sellers was sentenced to death in 1986 for murder. He became the first person in the United States to be executed for a crime committed at 16 since executions resumed in 1977.
(http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/juveniles/gallery/images/5.jpg)
Napoleon Beazley was sentenced to death in 1995 for the murder of John Luttig, which he committed at age 17.
(http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/juveniles/gallery/images/1.jpg)
Shareef Cousin was sentenced to death in Louisiana for murder in 1996. He was 16 at the time of the crime.
(http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/juveniles/gallery/images/8.jpg)
Scott Hain was executed in Oklahoma on April 3, for the murder of Michael Houghton and Laura Lee Sanders. He was 17 years old at the time of the crime. Among those who appealed to Governor Brad Henry to stop the execution, in addition to Amnesty International, was Nobel Peace laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
The United States and Somalia are the only countries in the world that have not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Twenty-one U.S. states allow for the execution of people who were 16 or 17 at the time of the crime. Out of the 38 death penalty states, 16 have abolished this punishment for juvenile offenders.
In the past five years, the United States has executed 13 juvenile offenders. Eight of these executions took place in the state of Texas. The rest of the world combined carried out five such executions. The United States accounts for four of the last five known juvenile offender executions in the last two years.
As of January 2004, more than 70 juvenile offenders sat on death rows throughout the United States; this constitutes approximately 2% of the total death row population.
Arent you trying to dictate our laws here? ;)
-
gee, a 16 year old executed for having a "sharp tongue". Wow, another sexist Muslim country. Those guys might have been jailed until adulthood, but they committed MURDER or other VIOLENT CRIMES. "sharp tongue", LMFAO, you cannot even defend that.
Karaya
-
I see no dictating Iran's laws from americans but you wet off on your rant. :)
-
Read the article but not the thread. What she do? Steal a little bread?
Nevermind. She had a" loud mouth."
Explains everything now.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I wet of what?
I see Americans wanting to invade Iran over this ... I'd call that "dictating".
Err I meant to write "went."
Americans always want to invade Iran since 1979. :)
-
Let’s see, Sean Sellers was 30 at the time of his execution for the murder of five people. +14 years
Napoleon Beazley was 25 at the time of his execution for the murder John Luttig. +8 years
Shareef Cousin is now off death row for murder. No death for him.
Scott Hain was 32 at the time of his execution for the murder of two people. +14 years
On average, they were given 11 years to find a way out of it. In one case, he did. How long did the girl in Iran get? 10 minutes?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
What right does any outsider have to dictate how a country runs its legal system? She was found guilty of a crime and punished according to their laws.
You are assuming that all legal systems have equal value: they do not. Legal process in Iran is dominated by the religious hardliners who use it to enforce their own power and view of morality (a view of morality that is manifestly unfair and prejudiced IMHO).
The US system has it's problems but the vast majority of trials are fair and open (the relatively small number of trials of people accused of terrorism are a sorry exception to this of course).
-
Originally posted by GScholz
How do you figure my posts constitute a "rant"? From what I can see my posts are either expressing my personal opinions, or presenting facts as I know them.
Then why haven't you?
Because they are long and emotinal, the word rant was not meant to express any sort of value judgement. In fact I find your position perfectly clear and rational, you are aginst the death penalty for crimes commited by minors. Thats fine, perfectly understandible.
Why not invade Iran? Honestly? Because the powers to be think it's tough to do, same for North Korea. I'm pretty sure Iraq was done, at least in party, because it was tjhought to be doable and more or less easy - which as far as invasions of large countries go I suppose it was. The occupation part obviously wasnt so well thought out.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Where did I defend that? I believe I called it despicable. You failed to mention that after they reach adulthood you KILL THEM for crimes they committed when they were CHILDREN. "Juvenile delinquent" is an oxymoron. Children are not in authority of their own lives, but are in the custody of their parents or guardians and society in general. Therefore children are not responsible for their own actions.
It WASN'T directed at you. But now that you mention it, at age 16 (31 now), I knew damn well what I was doing. I guess I was the only 16 year old who knew he was into mischief eh?
Don't throw stones in glass houses. Again, they knew they were committing murder. Furthermore, they appeal for 10 years anyways. So they won't be EXECUTED as JUVENILES. "Innocent until proven Guilty". My point still stands.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Pei
You are assuming that all legal systems have equal value: they do not. Legal process in Iran is dominated by the religious hardliners who use it to enforce their own power and view of morality (a view of morality that is manifestly unfair and prejudiced IMHO).
The US system has it's problems but the vast majority of trials are fair and open (the relatively small number of trials of people accused of terrorism are a sorry exception to this of course).
Very good point. I'm very much against this idea of moral relativism that seems to form the basis of Gsholz's non interfearnce idea.
I suppoose that by his standard none of the euro countries should have spoken out or done anything like an embargo or sanctions or perhaps even war against Hitler's laws in the 1930s.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I assume nothing. You are not a member of their society. You are not subject to their laws. You have no right to dictate how they should run their legal system. You may dislike it all you want.
GsScholz with all due respect I disagree 100%
(http://mywebpage.netscape.com/gerhardmas2/star.gif)
-
Just a bit of clarification. In the common law tradition, a person can create the necessary mental state (mens rea) to commit a crime at the age of seven.
This does not mean we shoud execute them for thier actions at such a tender age. However, the idea that "children" at the age of 14 or 17 are not responsible for thier actions, or alternatively thier parents or society [sic] is in fact to blame has little merit.
Yes, indeed the death penalty is alive and well in the USA, but so procedural due process--the difference that seperates us from the rest of the world.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
GsScholz with all due respect I disagree 100%
(http://mywebpage.netscape.com/gerhardmas2/star.gif)
Couldn't have said it any better.
Wait, we're all supposed to stand by and watch it happen. My bad. :rolleyes:
Karaya
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I assume nothing. You are not a member of their society. You are not subject to their laws. You have no right to dictate how they should run their legal system. You may dislike it all you want.
I bet China would change a few things in your country if they considered it their right to do so.
In the respect of legal process the Western world has better systems than Iran, therefore the western world should encourage Iran to improve: the Iranian legal system has less value (IMHO) than the US (or UK, or Norwegian) because it is less fair and more political.
I think it is right to try and make the world a better place. I think nations have a duty to encourage other nations to improve themselves.
Why should Iranians be subject to unfair, political and prejudiced trials when we are not? Are they less deserving of justice than we are?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Irrelevant. Genocide is a criminal act according to international law. Executing criminals is not.
No you dont.. You are not going to weazel out of it that easy..
Who said anything about Genocide... The Nazis did a lot of things before they commited genocide against the jews, or even saettled on genocide as a solution.. Property was taken away, jobs denied, marriage laws, discrimilation, the mandatory wearing of the star, plain old beatings and on and on...
Or one could simply say that Nazi laws stated that all jews were criminals, so who are you to dispute thier legal findings..
You cant win this one GScholz...
-
And GScholz sidesteps to the right, followed by a quick left, spin back right and he avoids the real damn question...
You cant face the nazi problem about your bankrupt moral relativism so youre trying to change the subject.
-
They are not masters of thier own fate because they don't have a deomcratic system. One of the reasons they don't have a democratic system is because the religious establishment uses the legal system to keep itself in power.
-
You are avoiding the question..
It's undersatndible, you moral relativits will never be able to answer the nazi germany question.. I dont hold it gainst you though, this basic denial is equired to maintain your illusion.
Just stand by and do nothing, because we are not members of their society!
"I assume nothing. You are not a member of their society. You are not subject to their laws. You have no right to dictate how they should run their legal system. You may dislike it all you want."
-
Interesting tangent, GScholz. Thanx.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Had we not been at war with Germany when they started slaughtering the Jews then, yes we should have invaded them to stop it.
Good night.
Why on earth would you do that back then? Genocides werent illegal...
-
Originally posted by wrag
Not really sure.......
but thought her judge said she was punished for having spoken out?
Looked like he went out of his way to see her excuted?
So the woman was executed for being mouthy?
Damn. Some countries have the best penalties:D
-
Gscholz...Fyi colored people were not treated like jews in europe.America participated in slavery , as has every country in the world, including africa. Africa wiped out the hottentots [ not sure of spelling] hunted them down like dogs,killed them man women and child,because they were brown and small amoung other things.
That is the way of an evil world,unlike most in europe, and sad to say most liberals in this country, I and other like minded people will condem this to hell no matter who does it.I believe America paid for that sin many times over.
Midnight Target have you totally lost your moral compass?.79 people that took the young lifes for no reason. Whats the difference? Maybe in even your world 15 to 20 years more to live might make a small difference? I have no understanding for people like you, that act as if there were no victim. No babies without mothers, no fathers and mothers with out sons or daughters. Your compassion for these animals is amazing.The little girl in iran had a smart mouth,and was killed at 16 not 36.
If a smart mouth is all it takes, then you better look over your shoulder, your next.
-
Originally posted by Pei
They are not masters of thier own fate because they don't have a deomcratic system. One of the reasons they don't have a democratic system is because the religious establishment uses the legal system to keep itself in power.
Actually Iran had a parliment and a budding democracy with an elected leader back in the fifties.
But some small things got in the way, like Oil reserves and western corporations.
-
Originally posted by Torque
Actually Iran had a parliment and a budding democracy with an elected leader back in the fifties.
But some small things got in the way, like Oil reserves and western corporations.
..and MI5 and the CIA. But that still doesn't mean that the current regime should not be encouraged to reform.
-
LOL your morals are defined by legality.. You just lost...
-
Originally posted by parker00
How does this have anything to do with the original post?
Originally posted by wrag
Surprised??? Why would I post something about the French?
The 2 news items don't compare???
it was linked on the same page.
-
This whole thread is about your definitionon of morality as a legal concept and how all are equally valib because their people think so.
Here's an intresting idea. several times you stated that genocide is illegal due to international law.
You also mention that members of a society should dictatre thir own laws and not outsiders.
So the international laws are valid because member states agrreed to them.
What happends then when a country rejects this international body and sets off on its own and starts slaughtering a minority group they declare top be criminals. They are no longer a member of the treaty, or the UN, or the Geneva Conventions, or the League of Nations etc - any of these.
What justification would you have to interfesre then? You would be imposing your foreign morals on them.
By your definitions none... Its not illegal accoring to that nations law and they asre not members of any internatinal agrrement or body..
-
Originally posted by GScholz
What right does any outsider have to dictate how a country runs its legal system? She was found guilty of a crime and punished according to their laws.
So if the US passed a law that says 16 year olds can't drive a car and the punishment is death, you should be perfectly okay with that....as in no problem at all with it, not blinking an eye....right?
Man you are out there sometimes.
-
Perhaps GScholtz was simply defending the Norwegian's
right to cast value judgements against American interference.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes you do.
(http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/juveniles/gallery/images/3.jpg)
Sean Sellers was sentenced to death in 1986 for murder. He became the first person in the United States to be executed for a crime committed at 16 since executions resumed in 1977.
(http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/juveniles/gallery/images/5.jpg)
Napoleon Beazley was sentenced to death in 1995 for the murder of John Luttig, which he committed at age 17.
(http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/juveniles/gallery/images/1.jpg)
Shareef Cousin was sentenced to death in Louisiana for murder in 1996. He was 16 at the time of the crime.
(http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/juveniles/gallery/images/8.jpg)
Scott Hain was executed in Oklahoma on April 3, for the murder of Michael Houghton and Laura Lee Sanders. He was 17 years old at the time of the crime. Among those who appealed to Governor Brad Henry to stop the execution, in addition to Amnesty International, was Nobel Peace laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
The United States and Somalia are the only countries in the world that have not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Twenty-one U.S. states allow for the execution of people who were 16 or 17 at the time of the crime. Out of the 38 death penalty states, 16 have abolished this punishment for juvenile offenders.
In the past five years, the United States has executed 13 juvenile offenders. Eight of these executions took place in the state of Texas. The rest of the world combined carried out five such executions. The United States accounts for four of the last five known juvenile offender executions in the last two years.
As of January 2004, more than 70 juvenile offenders sat on death rows throughout the United States; this constitutes approximately 2% of the total death row population.
Show me just one that was executed for a sharp tounge./
-
Reading the title of this thread., i was expecting someone telling us why they were no longer going to be playing because of incarseration.
-
Unwritten laws.. Thats far too vague, its open to cultural interpretation...
"it applies to everyone everywhere regardless"
Why? What if a peopole vote to reject them? Would yiou dictate that they obey then?
-
So Grun.. you would have no problem with her execution had she say... murdered her brother?
-
So the world will DICTATE these unwritten laws to a society which chooses not to accept them.
Got it.
-
Then, should the world not have the balls, the USA, at her choice, will dictate such laws on countries that choose not to accept them.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
What right does any outsider have to dictate how a country runs its legal system?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
There is no international law that prohibits the execution of criminals, you yourself do that. Should Iran suddenly begin exterminating people like the Germans did, then it is another matter entirely. Don't you see the difference?
Of course I see the difference.
But do you see the problem of your thinking...
The higest levels of the German legal system (Hitler) maticulously and fairly tried and convicted all individal Jews of greivious crimes according toGerman law (Hitler's whim). Accoring to german law (Hitler's whim again) criminals convicted of such crimes deserved the punishment of death. All was legally correct by the laws chosen by the German people... It was perfectly legal in the nazi state...
Whats your problem with that? Why would you want to interefere? The Nazi system was just as walid as is your Norwegisan system today, it was a fair process according to Nazi law. If there was a problem the people would fix it. Right? I maean if the Jews had any problems with this they would fix it themselves, wouldnt they? They would rise up and stop it.
-
GScholz contionues to ignore that fact that the people of Nazi germany made the killing of all jews a legal matter. This really makes it tough for GS to maintain his fallacy so he must ignore it.
-
Geez Grun will you EVER bring up a subject without bringing this 60 years old history?
-
It's perfectly appropriate here, plus the nazi's barbaric acts and laws are always a good way to stump moral relativists who argue that all political or legal systems are equally valid in thir own cultural settings.
-
No I "think" Gsholtz is asking a simple question that you are avoiding: Why would our system be better than any others? Is it because you have cable TV and chickin wings at 5 AM that yours is more valid?
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
No I "think" Gsholtz is asking a simple question that you are avoiding: Why would our system be better than any others? Is it because you have cable TV and chickin wings at 5 AM that yours is more valid?
So in your mind the US system is not better than Irans religious zealot government?
Great! I'll say that the average EU members laws are about equal and fair to those of North Korea...
No no the laws of Beligium are no more valid and no better than Nazi Germany's laws.. U like that right, really like it saw?
Does reading these posts leave any doubt thath europe is morally bawnkrupt. Here we have euros sayingb that Irans theocratic dictatorship is morally equivalent to America's democracy and legln system
-
No (thinking absolutely here, no longer close to the case at hand, with the girl). I'm saying (in the long scheme) that Muslims have ruled north africa and a large part of asia for centuries (more time than the US existed)... their rules were the ones that were set as "normal/regular".
Tomorrow, it may be the chinese's
Day after tomorrow the Luxemburgish
In the long run, your system beliefs don't count. they will be overuled by anothers.
-
What do centuroes of muslim rule many centuries ago have to do with the current valididy of Irans dicatorship state, except that it's hoplessly backward?
Heck europe has had centuries of culture and loook where that ended up in 1914 and 1939..
GS I undersatnd yiour need to ignore taht issue.
As for your america example. Do you want an answer? Really? You limit my option to answering whrther the usa should have been invaded ir not. Thsts kind of conveniant for you isnt it, just that one extreme option. I think the world community should have placed pressue on the USA to fix those social problems. The world did that to south africa, really really interfreared and pressured it.
So now that out of the way, answer my earlier question.
Also is Norway's stem equally as valid as Irans and Nazi Germanys?
-
Centuries of history are irrelevant... but 5 years are?
Mind if I use your own words?:
Thsts kind of conveniant
-
Most of the world was ruled by despots and dictators for thousands of years. Democratic societies were quite rare for the vast majority of time. Also there was slavery for thousands of years plus the opression of women.
Are all those supposed to be good now just because they were in the past?
Yoiur agrument about Iria is this:
Islamic law ruled hundreds of years ago and I think this makes it great that Iran is doinmg the same, who cares about human rights abuses.
Would you say the same about the Taliban? They followed Islmaic law extremly well, just like long long ago!
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Of course I see the difference, but it is not my place or yours to dictate what their laws should be and how their justice system should work. Personally I find the practice of executing children despicable, whether it is in Iran ... or the USA.
Wow are you saying it was ok for Hitler to slaughter the Jews? For Stalin to slaughter millions? For Pol Pot to wipe out half of Cambodia?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Irrelevant. Genocide is a criminal act according to international law. Executing criminals is not.
Stalin and Pol Pot labelled those they execute criminals. You have some interesting friends gscholz.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Stalin and Pol Pot labelled those they execute criminals. You have some interesting friends gscholz.
Yep Vulcan but GS is trying really really hard to ignore that, just look at his responses to my posts about the same...
-
Is Norways government and legal system equally valid and moral as that of nazi germany or Iran?
But yea GS go ahead and ignore moronic outbustrrs lie Vulcan's, its absolutely neccesasry for you to maintain yoiur fallacy.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
In my opinion our system is superior.
Ok..
Originally posted by GScholz
In their opinion I would think not so.
Really?
Lets ask Klaus Stern:
(http://archives.thedaily.washington.edu/1996/041796/holocaust041796.gif)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Was Mr. Stern a German Nazi or an Iranian? Didn't think so. Please make sense.
OMG! I will just let your words speak for themselves... maybe one day you will understand what you just said...
-
quote: You do something horrible that cannot be allowed by international law and the morals of all civilised peoples: I will kick you in the nuts until you stop doing it!
Should Iran suddenly begin exterminating people like the Germans did, then it is another matter entirely. Don't you see the difference?
So practicing genocide within their own country is not a violation of international law or immoral to civilized people as was happening in Iraq.
Therefore executing a teen for having a sharp tongue is also ok.
Check
-
You just cant/wont see his point can you Grun. I dont like what happened, but its their law. Were they to line up a couple million and do the same, based on their race, then I think the situation might be a bit different. Your dislike of something dosent make it "wrong".
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Perhaps one day you will lern to stay in context Grun. You asked me if I thought our justice system was better than that of Nazi Germany or Iran. I said yes I do but I doubt they did/do. You bring up a photo of a man who is obviously not a Nazi or an Iranian, to somehow prove that German Nazis and Iranians didn't/don't consider their system better then ours.
Perhaps one day ...
Funny.
He was a citizen of nazi germany..
Just like the 16 year old girl in Iran.
Maybe her voice doesnt count here because she isnt some mullah?
Thats what yiou are saying in the case of this man.. His voice doesnt count because he isnt a nazi.
You are a clever debater, I'll give yoiu that, but none of these technicalities you so despreatly cling to changes the fact tht you are wrong.
-
Originally posted by newguy
You just cant/wont see his point can you Grun. I dont like what happened, but its their law. Were they to line up a couple million and do the same, based on their race, then I think the situation might be a bit different. Your dislike of something dosent make it "wrong".
I see his point.
Nazi germany's laws made it legal to kill jews en masse. They wewre declared to be criminlas and they were punshed according to german laws.
Thats the simple problem GS faces and thats why he is trying to ignore that question..
-
GScholz
I beleive I understand the foundation for the question/construct you are posing to us. Regardless of our moral foundations and how we have read this article, or read into the article, the girl violated a cultural law. The law was exercised and punishment was enacted.<---This is the simple of it if we leave out our moral outrage.
In the first 3/5 of the 20th century the United States allowed business as usual in the south east toward african americans. Essentially an issue of states rights as I remember, rather than federal civil rights. It took the moral outrage of a non-southeastern voting block to convince Kennedy's involvment by a trumping of states rights with elevating the treatment of african americans to a federal civil rights status as a protected class of citizen. A minority.
In Iran I beleive their classes are by religious sect, rather than ethnicity. As such how the girl was delt with is an internal affair, and not the business of the world community. If the Iranian Mullas suddenly decide to have all non-ethnic persons inside of Iran to be gassed from today on, that opens the door to external intervention.
Just because of how law and punishment is metted out differently from ours by another culture, does not morally give us the right to impose our culture's values by War. Saddam qualifyed for War by gassing Kurds and filling mass graves with his own dissenters. Iraq and Germany have a parrallel. The 20th century showed the United States that we did not always get what we thought we wanted by helping, manipulating, or Attacking a regim. Just because we can stomp a country flat in the 21st century for persuing religion\LAW differently than us, it is not a moral justification.
How the 16 year old girl was delt with is reprehnsible. I have lived in the middle east. The judge had her executed through the legal system for something as minescule as his ego. My judeo\christian morality says he is wrong. Fataly so. My personal inclination toward that individual brings to mind images of wood chippers and squeeling pigs.
So with the afor admitted moral feelings, I nor the U.S.A. have the right to declair War on Iran. That judge's actions is a matter for the Iranian people to decide if they have had enough of.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
If you do something your justice system deems illegal, your voice does not count in your country either. You will be tried and punished according to your laws.
Right, those lawyers representing accused jews during the holcaust really tried they best but they just lost case after case after case iafter case after case after case after case after case after case after case in nazi germany..
You are wrong.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I've already stated that when that happened had we not already been at war with Germany we should have invaded them to stop it. Now stop lying.
Why should you have invaded? According to valid german law they wrere just exacuting criminals! And you said that internatinal law allowsc the exacution of criminals.
-
So what saddumb, usay and uday did was ok then.
Check.
-
Every jew was tried according to nazi german law (read: Hitler) and found guilty. To them they were only executing criminals. Why are you advocating interfearing with the workings of germany's criminal justice system?
Do you deny the fcat that Hitler, who was the ultimate valid german legal authority, declared that all jews were criminals?
Your stance is that all legal systems are valid and should be free from outsider interferance. So you do nothing in this case...
-
GS you arent so insane that as to think all legal systems are eqally valid.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
No I don't think all legal systems are equally just (what would "valid" mean in this contex?), but I also think that I have no right to force others to adopt my way of thinking.
You just said you would attack Germany because of their treatmnent of jews whom they judged to be criminals according Hitler who as absolute dictator was the ultimate arbitor of nazi germanys law.
-
Go ahead keep on ignoring the question GS...
-
I read your answers.
"even the Soviets pleaded that Germany should respect the GC through their embassy in Sweden."
This sentace really shows how fake and hollow your dear laws are... And why they are an answer to nothing...
-
Ignoring your answer? I read it very carefully, saw right through the nonsense..
Your answers have Stalin appealing to human rights laws. They mention unwritten codes... Nonsense.. What kind of bizzare moral posituion are yoiu in when yoiu use stalin's appeal to a human rights law?
-
"So with the afor admitted moral feelings, I nor the U.S.A. have the right to declair War on Iran. That judge's actions is a matter for the Iranian people to decide if they have had enough of."
Lemme translate that into 'the real world' :
Its only when the Irani legal system begins digging mass graves to put all the teenagers executed for giving the judge some attitude is when, and ONLY then, that the international community has a 'moral right' to intervene.
The situation is no different than you knowing your neighbor down the lane beats his teenaged kid unconscious every night and you know full well that it happens but you justify your lack of action and silence because its not YOUR kid.
-
I know its tough being wrong but GS resorting to personal attacks and insults is not good!
BTW in your frenzy of insult perhpas you made up the videa that I want the USA to invade Iran, I never said that..
-
Originally posted by GScholz
OIO the world is not silent about Iran, nor is the world doing nothing.
The world is passing many many laws, even unwritten ones. THat will show them!
-
Havent I been nice in this thread?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Ah, so we should have invaded the USA. Thanks for making that clear. I disagree though. (Yes it will always come back to that)
That we disagree or your silly america example?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Sending thousands of people to their deaths because you don't agree with their legal system. Yeah, that's a great moral decision.
You clearly advocate that fate for societies that choose to disagree with yoiur vaunted unwritten internqatinal laws...
-
GS please stop making stuff up.
Here is how you mistrepresented my words:
"However when Germany or Iran do this: "Property was taken away, jobs denied, marriage laws, discrimination, plain old beatings and on and on...", it is an international outrage that require nothing less than an invasion to stop it.
You are so blatantly hypocritical that it's rather disgusting."
Here is what I actually said:
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Very good point. I'm very much against this idea of moral relativism that seems to form the basis of Gsholz's non interfearnce idea.
I suppoose that by his standard none of the euro countries should have spoken out or done anything like an embargo or sanctions or perhaps even war against Hitler's laws in the 1930s.
So to you "perhpas even" translates to "nothing less than"
Soon after that post you came up with your all or nothing invasion illusion...
Are your arguments so weak that you have to resort to personal insults and lying?
-
I'm getting sicjk of this, your recent posts are full of insults and desperate tcatics, so its kind of pointless to contunie for the time being.
I'm guessing that in yiour current mood you will try to turn this post into this something that it is not - but I think it's best that you go calm down.
-
Originally posted by jEEZY
Yes, indeed the death penalty is alive and well in the USA, but so procedural due process--the difference that seperates us from the rest of the world.
Are you sure about that?
http://www.state.il.us/gov/press/00/Jan/morat.htm
"Since the death penalty was reinstated in Illinois in 1977, 12 Death Row inmates have been executed while 13 have been exonerated".
Makes you wonder just how many people were put to death for nothing other than being poor.
Btw Grunz, can you point out in the article where it says the cilent attended the same rally as Hiller did, seems vague i guess we must assume that's what happen right.;)
If so the guys a doughnut.:lol
-
One last post before I go.
I clearly stated a range of actions against germany:
"embargo or sanctions or perhaps even war against Hitler's laws in the 1930s."
In your USA example you limit it to one option, the most extreme option - invasion. Moreover you misrepresent my words when you said that my stance is that "nothing less than invasion." "Perhaps even" is worlds away from from your characterization.
Your increasing reliance on personal attacks, insults and desperate tactics like that why the wrote the post before this.
I say this out of good spirit towards you GS, please calm down and stop emarassing yourself with such low tactics.
-
There are plenty of things we disagree on in this thread. :)
-
I'm happy this ended well.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
This was America both pre- and post-WWII for "colored" people. Should we have invaded you (if we could)?
.
It is a known FACT that Europeans received MORE African descent Slaves than NORTH AMERICA.
Karaya
-
Newguy....did you really say ...your dislike of something doesnt make it wrong? Nah just a typo.
Bustr...I havent seen where anyone except gs started talking about invasion over the 16 year old.I dont think he meant we should, but by useing that as a misdirection , put grun a little more on defence.[ I think otto was tongue in check]
I mostly agree with your post,because you are able to make a moral judgement.
Saintaw...60 year old history is not important...
It is even more important now then it was then. The latest example of 60 year old history is the sudan.It is happening even as you post such goofyness. France because of europes worship of egalitarianism has vetoed any direct action against sudan for the genocide of the blacks.
GS....you are right I believe we dont have a right to invade iran because of laws that allow such barbarism. I can make a moral judgement that our system , with its inherant problems is morally better than theirs. You and those of like mind cant. No matter how you spin it you cant.
If so and you say different why does europe hinder action on the sudan,Where are your troops to help? Where are frances and germanys troops? Because you would be helping people that are very very black? Or because you are in bed with the arabs? Or because your egalitarian beliefs has once again tied your hands.
I believe it is all three.So lets let europe sit on its throne again and do nothing, while another group is being wiped out.
Opionion; THIS IS A VERY GOOD THREAD, and debate, because to those on both sides who are not blind, can see clearly the 2 choices in this world today, It is better to see clearly each side then to agree.
-
"This was America both pre-WWII" Slavery wasn't during the 1950's and 1960's. nice try, Touche.
Next!
Karaya
-
Originally posted by GScholz
In the 1950s and '60s? Really, I did not know that.
dude you post too much
hehehe JK bro just adding another spice of humor...1 every 2.5 pages LOL
-
Yes I did say that demaw1, though looking at it now, I may not have been clear. What I meant was, just becuase someone (in this case Grun), thinks something is inherently "wrong", does not make it so for everyone. The point being, that saying somthing is "Wrong", or bad or evil for that matter, is a very fine line to walk.
Anyway this thread has exploded since I last checked. I think its time for the picture of the challenged kid running the race.
-
Newguy...dont agree, to me evil is easy to reconize at one time or another. Thanks for reply it was reasonable,I think this thread makes many things clear as to the differant beliefs.
-
no really, do you have carpal tunnel?
-
LOL
dude BTW .. take your mad typing hands over to this thread:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=128177
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Please read the entire thread. I'm getting tiered of these moronic outbursts.
Saying the brutal hanging of what was probably an innocent 16 year old girl (given the Iran tendency to treat women sexually violated as the criminals) is ok because its their law is moronic.
There are basic fundemental rights and wrongs you cannot argue over. This is one of them.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I didn't misrepresent anything.
So why shouldn't we have invaded America when we should have invaded Germany in the 1930s and now Iran?
Quite possibly because we weren't alive then?
-
My way is better than yours... will use a sledgehammer to prove it...
-
Originally posted by GScholz
That sentence is completely meaningless. Have you been drinking?
Are stupid? You asked why "we" didn't invade Germany in the 1930's, we, as in the people here present in this thread were most likely not alive in this time period.
We are dealing with a fact in the recent past - ie present, not something 70 years ago.
Or are you trying to exptrapolate some sort of bizarre logic relating the attitudes of the people on this BBS to the in-actions of people that lived 70 years ago?
Lay off the estrogen.
-
GS....of course I did read it , I said something about otto or did you miss it. Also the others did not say because of this 16 year old we should invade iran.
There are many reason for invading iran but i am tired of American blood saving not only europe, but the world as a whole. Lets just stay home and tell the arabs, If we are attacked by them again we will destory them as a people.
Simple leave us alone and we will leave you alone. What part of leave alone dont any of you understand?
AH I LOVE IT PROOF THAT NOTHING CHANGES.
Proof that our forefathers were right.
GS,european and liberal belief.
It would ruin north south treaty if sudan was invaded.
It would ruin north south treaty if sudan was invaded
What more proof does anyone need?
Treaty,another piece of paper and another million dead. Peace in our time. GIVE ME LIFE NO MATTER THE COST. europe and american liberals have no moral compass what so ever.
It is someone elses problem, but if so and so wants us there we will go. You are sick people, a stiff necked people .I would say you all better kiss your grandkids good bye for they will suffer what you have caused.
Dont blame anyone else here as I said this , perhaps this is to far to the right for here I dont know. I just dont understand how this is right or left. God protect the weak, for we have another piece of paper to protect us.
-
I have never had to get my courage from a bottle , show me where I am wrong.You said if we invade sudan it will ruin the treaty between north and south that was 10 years in the making,I didnt.....I am telling you 100,000s are dieing now but good ole europe they got there peice treaty and another resulotion on the way. Be here any minute , as another village is burned and the guts of babies are torn out.
And I am drunk? ha, once again a put down of someone who says history is repeating it self. Yes the secular humanist believe they are little gods unto them selves therefore another piece of paper will keep you from doing the right thing as youall compare bush to hitler. And another thousand people are killed by arabs because they are black and inferior, but europe has its paper.
You will reap what you have sown, shoot me tomarrow it wont change the truth.
-
I have read them well , thus the response ,I hope you all choke on your paper...You know you all are so good at bringing up links. How about one of you just one bring up a link that shows a picture of what is going on in the sudan.
Take a close look at their eyes. Ah never mind, liberal minds can no longer comprehend such things. Besides you all are so intent on demonizing a portion of America and her military you wouldnt have time to look close. Besides you have your paper that took ten years to get.
-
Originally posted by wrag
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=80
from the article
"After her execution Rezai said her punishment was not execution but he had her executed for her “sharp tongue”."
Probably why they could'nt find a lawyer. Not that it mattered, they would have hung her anyways in the tradition of barbarism.
I'm with Lizking on this one.
blkmgc
-
On Sunday, August 15, a 16-year-old girl in the town of Neka, northern Iran, was executed. Ateqeh Sahaleh was hanged in public on Simetry Street off Rah Ahan Street at the city center. ...
She told the religious judge, Haji Rezaii, that he should punish the main perpetrators of moral corruption not the victims. ...
The judge personally pursued Ateqeh’s death sentence, beyond all normal procedures and finally gained the approval of the Supreme Court. After her execution Rezai said her punishment was not execution but he had her executed for her “sharp tongue”.
And though the Peugeot 206 is selling, said Jacques Manlay, the Tehran representative for Peugeot, no one is sure why and to whom. "All I know," he said, "is that it's a car for the young lady in the north of Tehran."
Looks like Peugeot just lost one potential customer. I wonder if they care.
If the 16-year-old had been the daughter of a Peugeot dealer, would the company be so quick to get into Iran?
-
GScholz,
Meaning no disrespect. Could you help me understand your position with a short direct paragraph. This thread has been very good. So much of it has been focused on your postion, but in your words everyone has been missing the mark.
Thank you,
-bustr-
-
IN credible that this thread is stil open.;)
-
Hmmmmmmm.... why it, the excution, happened?
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=128283
-
Originally posted by Lizking
So then Ravells, we should just give up and allw evil to spread?
The evil, Lizking, is that more children die of starvation everyday in third world countries than are killed on the roads in the west.
I know that it's very easy to get worked up about one particular death...who was it who said, 'one death is a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic'.
It seems to me, that the gung-ho lot on this board are far happier picking up little instances to demonise another race or country and look less into an international political 'blind eye' - of which all of us are a part. Where the blame might directly or indirectly lie on their countries.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by jEEZY
Just a bit of clarification. In the common law tradition, a person can create the necessary mental state (mens rea) to commit a crime at the age of seven.
This does not mean we shoud execute them for thier actions at such a tender age. However, the idea that "children" at the age of 14 or 17 are not responsible for thier actions, or alternatively thier parents or society [sic] is in fact to blame has little merit.
Yes, indeed the death penalty is alive and well in the USA, but so procedural due process--the difference that seperates us from the rest of the world.
Different countries have different perspectives about the age of responsibity for a crime. Ultimately it's just a guess. In the UK it's 10 not 7.
Other countries have 'due process', not just America, you may be suprised to learn.
I'm ambivalent/against the death penalty, but when you lot start saying..our death penalty is better than your death penalty - then you're really on a starter to nothing.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by Torque
Actually Iran had a parliment and a budding democracy with an elected leader back in the fifties.
But some small things got in the way, like Oil reserves and western corporations.
And here we get to the wider question...good post, Torque.
ravs
-
Originally posted by Maverick
So what saddumb, usay and uday did was ok then.
Check.
Which is exactly why we need international legal standards on crime...but who won't join the world court?
Yep, you guessed it.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by ravells
Different countries have different perspectives about the age of responsibity for a crime. Ultimately it's just a guess. In the UK it's 10 not 7.
This statement is relevant to the post you quoted and is in fact interesting IMO. I didn't realize that age was the point of responsibility in your country. FWIW that age is set by the state, not the USA. It can vary from state to state here.
Other countries have 'due process', not just America, you may be suprised to learn.
He didn't say other countries didn't have a due process for legal prosecutions. Your statement seems to be trying to "put words in his mouth" and setting a troll. IFRC the thread started talking about Iran and the execution of a teenager, seemingly for a "sharp tongue". The article made it plain that she was not given an oportunity to have due process as she was not allowed legal counsel. Your comment was both impolite and unnecessary. Of course he is welcome to his opinion of Iranian justice as are you.
I'm ambivalent/against the death penalty, but when you lot start saying..our death penalty is better than your death penalty - then you're really on a starter to nothing.
Ravs
Again, he didn't make any such statement.
-
Originally posted by ravells
Which is exactly why we need international legal standards on crime...but who won't join the world court?
Yep, you guessed it.
Ravs
The world court has authority to do what? Yep you guessed it, nothing. Pretty much like the effect of numerous resolutions from the UN on saddumb.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Again, he didn't make any such statement.
He said: Yes, indeed the death penalty is alive and well in the USA, but so procedural due process--the difference that seperates us from the rest of the world.
He ought to be more accurate in his posts.
Unless you're referring to the Martians :)
Ravs
-
Actually the way I read it he was comparing our due process, not the death penalty.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
The world court has authority to do what? Yep you guessed it, nothing. Pretty much like the effect of numerous resolutions from the UN on saddumb.
Very different. With a world court we could actually try people who break internationally recognised norms, but sadly, and perhaps justifiably the US is afraid that the world court will be used to bring its leaders to trial for spurious reasons.
Nevertheless, I do think that there is a case for it and that the US should support it.
But yes, I hear what you say, and it has some force.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Actually the way I read it he was comparing our due process, not the death penalty.
I meant the same due process....there are many countries in the world that practice the same form of criminal justice and follow the same processes.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Ok so what crime was it she supposedly commited to land her in court to begin with?
she got raped, and SHE got punished for having sex before marrage :rolleyes: :o
-
Originally posted by ravells
Very different. With a world court we could actually try people who break internationally recognised norms, but sadly, and perhaps justifiably the US is afraid that the world court will be used to bring its leaders to trial for spurious reasons.
Nevertheless, I do think that there is a case for it and that the US should support it.
But yes, I hear what you say, and it has some force.
Ravs
NO!
Seen to much of this and seen too much of what the world court is about NO!