Unjust Hanging of Van Tuong Nguyen

[Annie]

I think with that I proved my point. Whatever.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I take offense here. I don't do drugs. I gave up reefer when I graduated highschool and I haven't touched the stuff since. It takes a lot of will power to not smoke, especially living in a college town like Athens, Georgia where I am constantly given the chance to smoke it. Shove your assumptions about me where the sun don't shine genius.

HEY Genius !!!!!!! Didnt you see the smiley?

Maybe next time I will post twenty of them, oh well, but even the obvious eludes you......congrats on breaking the pot habit anyways though

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I've been waiting for someone to bring up the abortion issue with me again. It's been awhile and I've since changed my mind on the issue. I mulled the issue over and over in my brain and I decided that I think abortions are equal to murder. I'm now anti death penalty and anti abortion, but I'm still conflicted about the woman's right to choose during the first and second trimester...I'm not a woman, so maybe my opinion doesn't matter.

Well, congratulations. I bring up the abortion issue only in reference to liberals in general supporting it.

However, your comment about being a man doesnt give your opinion weight is silly. Should only military get to vote on if we should have a draft?

If abortion is immoral and hence should be illegal, then its based on the claim that the fetus has rights, if thats the case, you, as a man, have as much say so in protecting those rights of the unborn child, as any woman.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

They obviously don't value human life if they are so willing to extinguish it at the drop of a proverbial hat. If someone is sentenced to die, they should have at least committed some kind of act in which they harmed someone else. If he had committed a violent crime, I might be able to understand why he is being put to death, but the guy just had some drugs...Is that worth killing him? No IMO.

Why do you continue to ignore the points I showed why in Singapore, drug trafficking is especially dangerous to their society?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Originally Posted by Kathianne
They were all innocent?

Until proven guilty

Innocent until proven guilty only applies to individuals, not groups. We KNOW for a FACT that some of them were guilty. So , when Kathianne sarcastically asks (i.e. states) that all were not innocent, it is true.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

You really are brain dead arent you? Try to follow

You claim the SOVEREIGNTY of Singapore is insignificant.

No I don't.

Yet, one of the arguements for not invading Iraq, and allowing the murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to continue by Saddam, is because it is a SOVEREIGN nation.

Yeah. Many other countries are led by men who kill their own people and we haven't invaded them. Iraq didn't attack us, but we invaded it anyway. Should we invade every sovereign nation that kills its own people? Wouldn't that amount to being the world's police? And doesn't a policy like that undermine the sovereignty of other nations? I don't think the military can stretch that far anyway.

According to you then, SOVEREIGNTY doesnt matter if ONE person is unjustly being executed

No, you're putting words in my mouth--stupid words at that--stop it.

BUT, in Iraq, SOVEREIGNTY matters, even though hundreds of thousands are being murdered (oh, and they didnt even break drug laws!)

No, there's no double standard. You're not going to find one. The only way you'll find a double standard in what I've written is if you make it up like you have here and like you tend to do on most threads. Your logic is garbage and your arguments are contrived. I haven't been advocating invading Indonesia. I haven't mentioned their sovereignty. I haven't said anything about changing their laws either. You have. All I'm saying is that they are savages because they murder people over small offenses and hence do not value human life. Come back to me when you have something real.

 

[Bonnie]

The power Hitler gained to carry out the holocaust was not gained democratically.

So what are you saying, the people of Singapore should abandon their law because other people feel its unjust? Well, wouldnt that create a bit of a problem? I mean, now what other laws should they abandon? How will their lawmakers have any credibility anymore when it has now been decided they create unjust laws, cuz MAX and Hag said so. When will you become their benevolent dictator? Will you allow abortion to be legal? Do you think partial birth abortion is a bit "unjust" a punishment to the almost born child?

Think about that for a moment, this fits in perfectly with the mindset that other countries have the right to tell us what to do right?? Liberals think France et all should influence our SCOTUS and how we conduct foreign policy for dealing with terrorism attacks.......Your wasting your time here with logic

 

[LuvRPgrl]

No I don't..

Yes you do, cuz you think the law shouldnt be carried out.

Yeah. Many other countries are led by men who kill their own people and we haven't invaded them. Iraq didn't attack us, but we invaded it anyway. Should we invade every sovereign nation that kills its own people? Wouldn't that amount to being the world's police? And doesn't a policy like that undermine the sovereignty of other nations? I don't think the military can stretch that far anyway..

What the hell does that have to do with anything" If I point out two situations where you are INCONSISTENT, then the others are not needed.

No, you're putting words in my mouth--stupid words at that--stop it..

Nope, your own words, as you will see .....

I haven't said anything about changing their laws either. You have. Come back to me when you have something real.

Havent said "ANYTHING" about changing their laws???

What about this??:
I think human rights trumps any idiotic politics that might come up.


or this:
I think any law that is cruel and unjust should be banned.

and this:
So screw the Islamic law, is that what you are saying?

The unjust, barbaric ones, yes.


and this:
They should run it according to the rules of common decency, i.e. not killing people willy nilly for trivial offenses.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Think about that for a moment, this fits in perfectly with the mindset that other countries have the right to tell us what to do right?? Liberals think France et all should influence our SCOTUS and how we conduct foreign policy for dealing with terrorism attacks.......Your wasting your time here with logic

very, very true. Wasting my time? ahhh, but its fun. Besides, I have to wait for my wife to come online everynight, I have to do something.

Ya know, also, max power brought up the halocaust, well, what the Nazis did to the Jews was in fact illegal. Hitler wanted to keep it as quiet as possible, cuz he knew if it became "OPEN" public knowledge, something would have to be done to stop it.

Now, if you think about it, the laws PROTECTING Jews from the halocaust, Hitler and the Nazis "felt" or "thought" those laws were unjust, and they should "ignore" them, just as HC and Maxi pads claim about the Indonesian law. Same concept that the Nazis and HC and Maxi pads have, different application

 

[LuvRPgrl]

No, I don't have to do what Cookie tells me to do. Read the context of the post before you open your mouth YOU FRICKIN' GENIUS!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do I sense hostility here???

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Yes you do, cuz you think the law shouldnt be carried out.

No, I don't. I said their law is barbaric and unjust. That has nothing to do with their sovereignty. You're wrong and you're beating a dead horse.

What the hell does that have to do with anything" If I point out two situations where you are INCONSISTENT, then the others are not needed.

You said...

Yet, one of the arguements for not invading Iraq, and allowing the murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to continue by Saddam, is because it is a SOVEREIGN nation.

If the reason for being in Iraq has miraculously changed from "finding WMDs" to "liberating Iraqis from the tyranny of Saddam," why don't we invade every "sovereign" nation that mistreats it's citizens? You're obviously confused. You're arguing for the Iraq war, which totally undermines the sovereignty of Saddam's government, but you are against saving a guy from being murdered for simply having drugs in his bag because it would "undermine Indonesia's sovereignty?" You've got two conflicting arguments going here...you might want to regroup.

Nope, your own words, as you will see .....

All taken out of context with contrived arguments tagged on willy nilly.

I think human rights trumps any idiotic politics that might come up.

Original, intended context: Response to Gem's post in which she farcically listed reasons for not trying to help save this man from an unjust execution such as,

I'm afraid that if I interfered with another society's culture by telling them what not to execute this man...many people in this country and others would brand me as an intolerant, jingoistic, American imperialist spreading my incideous, capitalistic American consumer culture to nations that have no desire to hear my opinions or to be influenced by my beliefs on what justice should be.

She's trying to make me and the others arguing to save this man from savages who want his blood look foolish by trying to make it seem like the act of appealing to Singapore to spare this man's life is comparable to spreading capitalist consumerism where it is not wanted. Does anyone here disagree that human rights are more important than petty politics?

Contrived, Luvergirl interpretation: Hagbard Celine is calling for the hostile takeover of Indonesia and is questioning the legitimacy of Indonesian sovereignty.

or this:
I think any law that is cruel and unjust should be banned.

Original, intended context: "Any law that is cruel and unjust should be banned." Does anyone here disagree? Here in the US and in the rest of the civilized world, unjust laws are repealed or rewritten. What makes Indonesians exempt from going through the same process? The fact that some of them still wear loin cloths and live in trees? If anything, I think this is a reason to expedite the process!

Contrived Luvergirl interpretation: Hagbard hates Indonesians and wants to see their government topple in a glorious coup executed by US military police.

and this:
So screw the Islamic law, is that what you are saying?

The unjust, barbaric ones, yes.

Original, intended context: Who disagrees that throwing rocks at women and killing them for committing adultery or for talking back to their husbands or for being seen in public unaccompanied by a man is barbaric? Who disagrees that strapping a bomb to yourself and killing innocent people so that you will be rewarded with virgins in heaven is barbaric? Any takers? You can't keep a straight face and tell me that these people aren't savages.

Contrived Luvergirl interpretation: HC is crazy because he thinks Islamic Shariah laws that undermine the rights of women and devalue human life should be rethunk. Furthermore, this is direct evidence that HC is calling for the fall of Indonesia and is calling for their sovereignty to be ruled illegitimate.

and this:
They should run it according to the rules of common decency, i.e. not killing people willy nilly for trivial offenses.

Original, intended context: They shouldn't kill people for trivial offenses. Who disagrees? If you do, go live with them and send us updates on how great it is in Indonesia.

Contrived Luvergirl interpretation: Hagbard Celine is crazy because he doesn't think executing people for trivial offenses and using corporal punishment for minor legal violations is rational behavior. What a crazy liberal.

 

[manu1959]

if i post a sign outside my house that says:

"if you break into my house i will shoot you dead"

and you read the sign and break into my house and i shoot you dead.

who's fault is it that you are dead?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

No, I don't. I said their law is barbaric and unjust. That has nothing to do with their sovereignty. You're wrong and you're beating a dead horse.

You said... If the reason for being in Iraq has miraculously changed from "finding WMDs" to "liberating Iraqis from the tyranny of Saddam," why don't we invade every "sovereign" nation that mistreats it's citizens? You're obviously confused. You're arguing for the Iraq war, which totally undermines the sovereignty of Saddam's government, but you are against saving a guy from being murdered for simply having drugs in his bag because it would "undermine Indonesia's sovereignty?" You've got two conflicting arguments going here...you might want to regroup.

All taken out of context with contrived arguments tagged on willy nilly.

Original, intended context: Response to Gem's post in which she farcically listed reasons for not trying to help save this man from an unjust execution such as, She's trying to make me and the others arguing to save this man from savages who want his blood look foolish by trying to make it seem like the act of appealing to Singapore to spare this man's life is comparable to spreading capitalist consumerism where it is not wanted. Does anyone here disagree that human rights are more important than petty politics?

Contrived, Luvergirl interpretation: Hagbard Celine is calling for the hostile takeover of Indonesia and is questioning the legitimacy of Indonesian sovereignty.

Original, intended context: "Any law that is cruel and unjust should be banned." Does anyone here disagree? Here in the US and in the rest of the civilized world, unjust laws are repealed or rewritten. What makes Indonesians exempt from going through the same process? The fact that some of them still wear loin cloths and live in trees? If anything, I think this is a reason to expedite the process!

Contrived Luvergirl interpretation: Hagbard hates Indonesians and wants to see their government topple in a glorious coup executed by US military police.

Original, intended context: Who disagrees that throwing rocks at women and killing them for committing adultery or for talking back to their husbands or for being seen in public unaccompanied by a man is barbaric? Who disagrees that strapping a bomb to yourself and killing innocent people so that you will be rewarded with virgins in heaven is barbaric? Any takers? You can't keep a straight face and tell me that these people aren't savages.

Contrived Luvergirl interpretation: HC is crazy because he thinks Islamic Shariah laws that undermine the rights of women and devalue human life should be rethunk. Furthermore, this is direct evidence that HC is calling for the fall of Indonesia and is calling for their sovereignty to be ruled illegitimate.

Original, intended context: They shouldn't kill people for trivial offenses. Who disagrees? If you do, go live with them and send us updates on how great it is in Indonesia.

Contrived Luvergirl interpretation: Hagbard Celine is crazy because he doesn't think executing people for trivial offenses and using corporal punishment for minor legal violations is rational behavior. What a crazy liberal.

hahahhahahhaha

talk about twisting and turning...hahhahahahhahahahahah

 

[GotZoom]

if i post a sign outside my house that says:

"if you break into my house i will shoot you dead"

and you read the sign and break into my house and i shoot you dead.

who's fault is it that you are dead?

George Bush.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

hahahhahahhaha

talk about twisting and turning...hahhahahahhahahahahah

Alright. I'll take your lack of a valid retort as an omission of defeat.

 

[theHawk]

If the reason for being in Iraq has miraculously changed from "finding WMDs" to "liberating Iraqis from the tyranny of Saddam," why don't we invade every "sovereign" nation that mistreats it's citizens? You're obviously confused. You're arguing for the Iraq war, which totally undermines the sovereignty of Saddam's government, but you are against saving a guy from being murdered for simply having drugs in his bag because it would "undermine Indonesia's sovereignty?" You've got two conflicting arguments going here...you might want to regroup.

I was in the military when the Iraq war started. From day one the Mission was given to the entire military. It was called Operation Iraqi Freedom from the Day ONE, not several months later. The mission was destroy the Iraqi army, remove Saddam, search for WMD, and set up a democracy. You're entire arguement is baseless, as you have demonstrated you are either ignorant of these facts, or you know them but choose to lie to push your agenda. I'm guessing its the latter.


Otherwise, I don't understand the point of most of this thread. Some drug dealer is getting executed. Its a little excessive by our standards yes. But who said life was fair.

 

[GotZoom]

I was in the military when the Iraq war started. From day one the Mission was given to the entire military. It was called Operation Iraqi Freedom from the Day ONE, not several months later. The mission was destroy the Iraqi army, remove Saddam, search for WMD, and set up a democracy. You're entire arguement is baseless, as you have demonstrated you are either ignorant of these facts, or you know them but choose to lie to push your agenda. I'm guessing its the latter.


Otherwise, I don't understand the point of most of this thread. Some drug dealer is getting executed. Its a little excessive by our standards yes. But who said life was fair.

Bravo! A few of our members love to take a subject of a thread and start throwing in their little thoughts about Bush, Iraq, etc....

Each country has their laws. We expect people to abide by our laws when they come to our country. Many people around the world think that some of our laws are barbaric. And others think they are a joke.

Do we change our laws based on what other countries think? Of course not.

It is no secret that if you break certain laws over there, you know the consequence.

In the U.S., if you speed and get caught, you get a ticket and a fine. If you kill someone, you are sentenced to prison.

Over there, if you smuggle drugs, you get the death penalty.

You think that is unfair? Here is an idea.

Don't do it.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Alright. I'll take your lack of a valid retort as an omission of defeat.

I know when we play softball, sometimes we go up against a team we know is probably gonna clean our clocks. If it starts appearing they arent gonna have enough players, we start hoping.....

Sorry charlie, too early for you to declare victory. Note the time I posted, it was late last night, your post was long and obfuscated. Im gonna handle it in several responses, I dont want to get into your game of obfuscation, so Im gonna simplify it and eliminate all your crap.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

George Bush.

Thanks for the morning laugh !

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Alright. I'll take your lack of a valid retort as an omission of defeat.

Then I would have to take ALL OF YOUR POSTS as an ommission of defeat.