If he is not guilty, turn him loose. If he is guilty, execute the SOB.

If he is not guilty, turn him loose. If he is guilty, execute the SOB.

Posted by Sniper at 2007-06-17 09:58 PM


Since when did truth or justice matter to you. Whatever the government says happened is your reality. Why let facts get in the way.

Lockerbie was done by Syrian / Iranians in particular for the terrorist act committed by USS Vincennes in shooting down an Iran air Airbus.

Only targeted Libyans as Gadaffi was US enemy number 1.

Now they will charge Syria / Iran.

Sniper, he was found "guilty" years ago. If they'd executed him then, and exculpatory evidence subsequently surfaced, what would you say? "Oops"?

Odie1, it sounds like a big, heaping bowl of Suspect d'Jour. (It would be difficult to imagine the Iranians letting the Vincennes-Iran Airbus horror show pass by without looking for some way to retaliate. Agree?)

Buf, the truth may not mean anything to you libs but it is everything to me.

Doc, I didn't say 'found' I said if he 'is' guilty.

A recent study has found that executions stop 5 murders but that aside, executions are 'punishment' for the guilty.

Doc, I didn't say 'found' I said if he 'is' guilty.

You're missing the point, Sniper. He was declared "guilty" after a trial. Now there are questions about that verdict.

If a person isn't guilty after a verdit of "guilty" is handed down, when and how is guilt to be established?

Oh, and what does "A recent study has found that executions stop 5 murders" mean? What study? Five murders? Where? How do you stop something that never happened?

Oh, and Sniper, if you get a nosebleed or your head feels like it's going to explode as you're dealing with those questions, I've heard those are just symptoms of the critical faculties portion of the brain moving from "At Rest" into first gear. There's maybe a study somewhere that probably proves it. Enjoy the ride!

Doc

I have always believed that Lockerbie was payback for the Airbus, both were terrorist acts. Never believed and still don't believe that the guy convicted was guilty but Gadaffi needed to pay a price to get back into the good books of the west.

The difference is that on one the media hyped it up as an outrage while on the other it was blamed on a civilian airliner not carrying military radios and allowing USN personnel lie and cheat their way out of an act of war as they were within Iranian waters when they fired the missiles.

Unsurprisingly when the Iranians saw the way their citizens could be murdered and the perpetrators get off they sought revenge.

Doc, you can't be that stupid. There is a huge difference between just being found guilty and actualy being guilty.

The study about the executions was all over the papers a week ago, don't you read? Hell, it was even on this post! I would like to argue with you but you seem to be unarmed.

Unsurprisingly when the Iranians saw the way their citizens could be murdered and the perpetrators get off they sought revenge.


ya mean kinda like the territory of the usa being invaded and us citizens held hostage for 444 days you mean kinda like that?

wish we had sought revenge specially since you seem to think revenge is ok....

Doc, you can't be that stupid. There is a huge difference between just being found guilty and actualy being guilty.

Sure there is, Sniper. One is a legal determination. The other is a moral determination and/or correct assignment of responsibility. And my question to you was: If a person isn't guilty after a verdit of "guilty" is handed down, when and how is guilt to be established? You are clearly not able to answer the question. I'll try and make it easier for you next time.

The study about the executions was all over the papers a week ago, don't you read? Hell, it was even on this post! I would like to argue with you but you seem to be unarmed.

Yes, I do read, Sniper. No, I didn't read that post. And you're absolutely, positively certain the study supported your statement: "A recent study has found that executions stop 5 murders"

I've read your summary of this study, whatever it was, and it just doesn't make any sense. "Executions stop 5 murders." Were these five particular murders that were about to committed and, somehow, executions stopped them from taking place? How? Or does every execution prevent five murders from taking place? If so, how could anyone possibly know?

Cheka, do you equate taking over an embassy and holding hostages with shooting down a civilian airliner and killing nearly 300 people?

Thanks for your comments, Odie1. Payback for the Airbus has always seemed a very likely scenario to me, as well. What do you suppose Bush-Cheney would do if a US airline's passenger plane, with nearly 300 people aboard, was blasted out of the sky by an Iranian naval vessel?

ya mean kinda like the territory of the usa being invaded and us citizens held hostage for 444 days you mean kinda like that?

wish we had sought revenge specially since you seem to think revenge is ok....

Posted by cheka at 2007-06-18 10:26 AM

I think supplying Iraq with chemical weapons, plus military hardware, satellite info etc to prolong the Iran-Iraq war seems to have been revenge.

How many of the hostages died ?

Oh Yeah NONE

How many Iranians died as a result of US support for Iraq ? Rough guess is 1 million Iranians including 100,000 killed by US supplied technology to develop chemical weapons.

Buf, the truth may not mean anything to you libs but it is everything to me.


Posted by Sniper at 2007-06-18 09:38 AM

The truly sad part is you probably believe it. You fail to realise that you change reality to fit your perception.

The truth means nothing to you.

""Buf, the truth may not mean anything to you libs but it is everything to me.""

I'm sorry, I can't help it.....hahahahahahhahaahahahah
ahahahahaa!
Who do you think you are fooling????

Darn, we just had it all tied up with a big shiney red ribbon too...

Doc, I didn't do the study. Go bug the man that did. He said he was against executions but the study made a believer out of him. Go figure.

How many Iranians died as a result of US support for Iraq ? Rough guess is 1 million Iranians including 100,000 killed by US supplied technology to develop chemical weapons.

Posted by odie1kanobe

We didn't supply the weapons!!! He made them himself. It isn't very hard to do!!!

We didn't supply the weapons!!! He made them himself. It isn't very hard to do!!!

Posted by Sniper at 2007-06-18 05:05 PM | Reply


We sure in the hell did. Under Reagan we did. In fact Reagan Circumvented Congress just to arm Him to the teeth. Face Reality dude.

Larry

Larry, we sent arms and ammo, not gas and germs. don't you know the difference. At the time he was fighting Iran. They held our people for 444 days remember. An enemy of my enemy is my temporary friend. If you remember we supplied arms and ammo to the duds that were fighting Russia over in Afaganstan. They arn't our friends anymore either. They thanked us by flying airplanes into the WTC. It is a strange world.

We most certainly did send Gas and Germs to Saddam Hussein. Your denial is quite telling SNiper. You just can not face the facts now can You Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Larry

You sent him crop sprayers and equipment designed to use chemical weapons.