A MISSION FROM GOD

[rigney]

Many of you may think something like this is my favorite kind of topic. But I assure you, there's nothing farther from the truth. I would much rather be talking about an Ice Cream Social, Thanksgiving Dinner, Christmas, New Years Eve, A Wedding, Birthday Party. Anything other than madness such as this. Can it be stopped? I doubt it. But it could be reined in to some degree if we tried.

 

Tim McVeigh lived years and months too long after his horrific deed in Oklahoma. Another madman, who committed the Ft. Hood massacre will likely be around far longer than he should, for his "Unholy Deed". The Hinkley kid who gunned down Presisent Reagan? His life should have ended a couple weeks after the paper chase was completed. This Somali lad? Tomorrow, he should go away quietly and for good! Not locked up for a few years at our expense and turned loose. The list goes on and on.

Years ago it was literally preached that: "The Pen was mightier than the Worrd". Yes, it was mightier then and remains so today with one exception. We have now come to realize it as nothing more than a big fat lie. The entire world also understands it as nothing more. We have simply learned to live with this lie. The day will come though when even the Do Gooders and Nay Sayers cry out: "ENOUGH"!

 

Cute kid, but then so was McVeigh, Hinlkey, Son of Sam, etc. To me though, thought, plot and the act of committal are the same as if the actual deed had been carried out. Insanity, Schizophrenia? Does it really matter? We don't lock up bad or crazy horses and mad dogs do we? We shoot them, right?!

 

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Somali-Born-Teen-Plots-Car-Bombing-in-US-Northwest-110902949.html

Edited November 27, 2010 by rigney

[John Cuthber]

As far as I'm aware, God isn't a member of this forum.

[Moontanman]

What is the point of this message Rigney, are you trying to insult people who think everyone should have a fair trial? Do you think that a liberal doesn't feel pain or miss his friends and relatives when they are senselessly killed by one of these people? Are you trying to say our own laws, the laws we think make our society superior to other societies, do not apply to the people you mention? Do you really think that killing these people will keep them from doing the things you mention?

 

it doesn't really matter if you kill them or lock them up in solitary confinement or lock them up with a sociopath whose only goal is to sexually torture as many people to death as they can for the rest of their lives. it doesn't matter because these people have belief, belief in some higher power that tells them they are superior and that they have to do these terrible things to get their reward in the after life.

 

These beliefs are called religion, religion, when wielded by a true believer will always trump reality. Religion is where this crazy stuff comes from, yes the smiling simpletons who handle rattlesnakes and drink poison, or the ones who practice ritual cannibalism at the behest of their God's avatar to the ones who are chosen by God to occupy the earth first to the ones who say an arch angel told their ancestors to convert everyone on earth at the point of a sword to the ones who got their instructions from God via special books handed down by angels so they would know to marry as many little girls as possible and have as many other little girls so they can get them pregnant too, yes all of them are guilty of these horrific things because at some point Some one decided God told them to do these horrific things.

 

A mission from God trumps mans laws, trumps his right to breath, trumps everything because God is impotent and requires his slaves to do his bidding.

 

So how would you handle the problem differently? Would you handle the problem differently or are you just trying to poke those who do not share your religious or political views because you need someone to blame the ineffectiveness of our attempts to keep these horrible things from happening?

[John Cuthber]

As far as I can tell, Rigney is advocating the death penalty for terrorists which is a valid point of view, albeit one with which I disagree.

However he seems to be particularly focussing on suicide bombers.

 

 

Rigney,

The defining characteristic of suicide bombers is that they are dead.

You can't kill them twice no matter how much you want to get revenge,.

[random]

Well perhaps where the death would act as a deterrent it is worthy of consideration but in all reality that's pretty rare. If they aren't killed they are imprisoned for the rest of their lives and neither of those punishments will deter mentally ill or extremists or sociopath's etc. Now if they were of sound mind and subjected to a very public and brutally torturous death lasting a long while then that would act as a deterrent for that type of killer IMO

 

But then what happens once they see an innoccent person subjected to this type of punishment? We get a huge public outcry and shun the act so why mess with what works reasonably well now?

[Mr Skeptic]

Suicide bombers are actually the type of violent criminal that I think least deserve the death penalty.

[rigney]

As far as I can tell, Rigney is advocating the death penalty for terrorists which is a valid point of view, albeit one with which I disagree.

However he seems to be particularly focussing on suicide bombers.

 

Rigney,

The defining characteristic of suicide bombers is that they are dead.

You can't kill them twice no matter how much you want to get revenge,.

 

It's not revenge but simple justice. What say we give this guy another chance or two and he "eventually makes" it happen. What then, we lock him up for good? Edited November 27, 2010 by rigney

[jackson33]

Cute kid, but then so was McVeigh, Hinlkey, Son of Sam, etc. To me though, thought, plot and the act of committal are the same as if the actual deed had been carried out. Insanity, Schizophrenia? Does it really matter? We don't lock up bad or crazy horses and mad dogs do we? We shoot them, right?![/Quote]

 

It would be my guess rigney is questioning the process, where in the US we seem to coddle domestic violence perpetrators. While understanding the perception, it's those that are suspected to be equals to those type offenders and were not, especially as charged by the Federal. Too often IMO, persons accused of generally less than the above, that could have gone on to be equals, were found not to be involved during the very first appeal, if indeed found guilty in the first trial. We rarely think about these folks or ever know about, in a few cases until long after they have been executed. Hopefully with due respect to those harmed during any violent act, it remains more important to me, that the right person or persons are convicted and punished, then the speed to punishment.

 

As for the insanity plea or an act committed under some mental disorder (at the time), I'm somewhat at the mercy of the folks in that area of expertise. I do think the crime involved, should be leveraged to the suggested mental problem. In many of these cases this can involve extensive medical institutionalizing before any trial and justifiable IMO. If we have and I think we do have, a leniency problem with folks taking medication to calm or temporarily relieve a disorder (Schizophrenia, that could lead to violent actions), but are not confined simply because they had/have not acted on those tendencies. it's in our laws.

 

Briefly on McVeigh; I stayed at the Sands Motel, OKC for over year in 2002/03, where he, other(s) and the U-Haul Truck spent their last night, before the bombing. The owner, who did testify at the McVeigh Trial, had called the OKC FBI and they DID investigate the unusual smell coming from the vehicle, but terrorism never entered either the FBI or the owners mind (why not?). In hind sight, when I was there, he and some of the remaining employees, felt "the other(s), were either Latino or could have been from the Middle East (dark skinned). Since the first Twin Towers Bombing had occurred in 1993 and the Murrah Federal Building bombing occurred in 1995, I have always questioned a possible connection...Additionally and to your point, McVeigh shut down his own appeal process, executed June 9th, 2001) or would likely still be appealing his case today. Is it possible, even if unlikely, he might have prevented what did happen THREE months later???

 

http://www.findadeath.com/Deceased/m/mcveigh/timothy_mcveigh.htm

[rigney]

Suicide bombers are actually the type of violent criminal that I think least deserve the death penalty.

 

Are you poking fun Mr. S? Yes, the bomber that gets it done can't be tried for anything, except in absentia. This guys job was to get it done and he failed! I think we should help him out and "perhaps" hang the Feds who duped him.

 

As far as I'm aware, God isn't a member of this forum.

 

No! But Jihad needs a God of some sort to perpetuate such religious fanaticism. That's the only reason it was used. Edited November 27, 2010 by rigney

[dragonstar57]

Suicide bombers are actually the type of violent criminal that I think least deserve the death penalty.

so we should feed and clothe the suicide bomber?

if a suicide bomber is caught and tried (unnecessary but thats an argument for another time)

the bomber should just be shot

they were ready to die so whats the difference?

[Anilkumar]

Hi everybody,

 

I think we are failing to notice something here.

 

From times immemorial, Religion and Fear of God have been hijacked by clever perverts to regulate those committed to it.

 

A suicide bomber is a brainwashed puppet. Like your trained pet dog. You train it to place a bomb, or tie it under its belly and detonte it with a remote. The trainer catches hold of naive human beings and condition their inexperienced, imprudent and hasty minds to execute those acts. So how many puppets are you going to put to death or confine?

 

The rulers [Not all, but the number that does not fit in this category is negligible]; be it the so called democratically elected representatives or those who snatch power by terror wielding, or the gentle spokepersons of the God - basically want to rule. They do it with a pretext. The pretext may be servitude, the pretext may be salvation, the pretext may be fear. None of these pretexts are good. Remember, their purpose is to enslave us.

 

Thank you.

[lemur]

The funny thing to me when people argue for killing whomever for whatever reason is that they feel the need to legitimate this to others. It's like they want permission to retaliate with violent force instead of just doing it. I forget when it was that it occurred to me that very liberal regimes that only give short sentences to murderers are basically promoting the death penalty by NGOs like mafias. If you have the money or the loyalty of friendship to get someone else to serve the time, you can pay them to kill someone for you in retaliation for whatever you want, and you don't have to legitimate it to anyone. Reduce the sentence for murder from 10 years to 5 years and you effectively discount the price of hiring a murderer.

[rigney]

Well perhaps where the death would act as a deterrent it is worthy of consideration but in all reality that's pretty rare. If they aren't killed they are imprisoned for the rest of their lives and neither of those punishments will deter mentally ill or extremists or sociopath's etc. Now if they were of sound mind and subjected to a very public and brutally torturous death lasting a long while then that would act as a deterrent for that type of killer IMO

 

But then what happens once they see an innoccent person subjected to this type of punishment? We get a huge public outcry and shun the act so why mess with what works reasonably well now?

What actually works now? That slap on the wrist?

 

The funny thing to me when people argue for killing whomever for whatever reason is that they feel the need to legitimate this to others. It's like they want permission to retaliate with violent force instead of just doing it. I forget when it was that it occurred to me that very liberal regimes that only give short sentences to murderers are basically promoting the death penalty by NGOs like mafias. If you have the money or the loyalty of friendship to get someone else to serve the time, you can pay them to kill someone for you in retaliation for whatever you want, and you don't have to legitimate it to anyone. Reduce the sentence for murder from 10 years to 5 years and you effectively discount the price of hiring a murderer.

Are you saying then, the guy buying 'the hit" will go out and do the murder himself because the sentence will likely be only half as bad? I can't but that. Killing someone, you might legitimize to some extent. But out and out murder, it's diabolical, regardless of the reason.

[lemur]

Are you saying then, the guy buying 'the hit" will go out and do the murder himself because the sentence will likely be only half as bad? I can't but that. Killing someone, you might legitimize to some extent. But out and out murder, it's diabolical, regardless of the reason.

No, you don't get what I'm saying. If someone needs/wants money and they're willing to kill to get it, they would be willing to spend some time in prison in exchange for the money. So lowering the sentence means less years of the hired-killer's life you have to compensate them for. Paying someone for a suicide mission requires compensating them for their entire life.

 

You say "out and out murder is diabolical," but why does it suddenly become less diabolical when it is legitimated? The use of force is supposed to be the minimum necessary to achieve a given goal. Once you get into retaliatory vengeance, killing becomes excessive force when you have the capacity to punish and/or incarcerate someone in a more rational way.

 

Deterrence is valid argument but there's no rational use of violence for deterrence. Basically, once you enter into repressive, pre-emptive violence the sky is the limit. Why is it more ethical to kill one person to deter another from crime than it is to torture them and let them go to tell others of their suffering as a deterrent to following in their footsteps?

[rigney]

Hi everybody,

 

I think we are failing to notice something here.

 

From times immemorial, Religion and Fear of God have been hijacked by clever perverts to regulate those committed to it.

 

A suicide bomber is a brainwashed puppet. Like your trained pet dog. You train it to place a bomb, or tie it under its belly and detonte it with a remote. The trainer catches hold of naive human beings and condition their inexperienced, imprudent and hasty minds to execute those acts. So how many puppets are you going to put to death or confine?

 

The rulers [Not all, but the number that does not fit in this category is negligible]; be it the so called democratically elected representatives or those who snatch power by terror wielding, or the gentle spokepersons of the God - basically want to rule. They do it with a pretext. The pretext may be servitude, the pretext may be salvation, the pretext may be fear. None of these pretexts are good. Remember, their purpose is to enslave us.

Thank you.

 

A persn who meekly relinquishes their freedom while professing to be honorable and just, is neither.

[lemur]

A persn who meekly relinquishes their freedom while professing to be honorable and just, is neither.

 

I agree, but I think you can distinguish between people who sacrifice their life for the hope of a cause and those who seek to give up their freedom in the hope of profiting and/or avoiding responsibility for their actions.

[rigney]

No, you don't get what I'm saying. If someone needs/wants money and they're willing to kill to get it, they would be willing to spend some time in prison in exchange for the money. So lowering the sentence means less years of the hired-killer's life you have to compensate them for. Paying someone for a suicide mission requires compensating them for their entire life.

 

You say "out and out murder is diabolical," but why does it suddenly become less diabolical when it is legitimated? The use of force is supposed to be the minimum necessary to achieve a given goal. Once you get into retaliatory vengeance, killing becomes excessive force when you have the capacity to punish and/or incarcerate someone in a more rational way.

 

Deterrence is valid argument but there's no rational use of violence for deterrence. Basically, once you enter into repressive, pre-emptive violence the sky is the limit. Why is it more ethical to kill one person to deter another from crime than it is to torture them and let them go to tell others of their suffering as a deterrent to following in their footsteps?

 

I'm afraid you've totally lost me. But "Murder" in any capacity is diabolical, and you can't get away from that. Battlefield killings are murderous and heinous, but "not murder"; unless you kill a combatent once he has surrendered. Right now we live in a very precarious and confused world. Those we are in opposition to today don't seem to, or want to understand the rules. Edited November 28, 2010 by rigney

[lemur]

I'm afraid you've totally lost me. But "Murder" in any capacity is diabolical, and you can't get away from that. Battlefield killings are murderous and heinous, but "not murder"; unless you kill a combatent once he has surrendered. Right now we live in a very precarious world. Those we are in opposition to today don't seem to understand the rules.

 

You're right. I have actually been exploring the idea of dueling, which was allowed by law up until around the civil war, I think. It was not murder because it required consent and a "fair fight." Theoretically, people meeting each other voluntarily on a battlefield are also voluntarily meeting each other's challenge. But what does this have to do with legitimating retaliatory killing for atrocities? My main point with that was that you could get away with it easier if you could do it yourself or pay someone to do it with relatively little threat of punishment. That is how liberal/tolerant regimes facilitate retaliatory violence, i.e. by allowing people to do it themselves with relative impunity.

Edited November 28, 2010 by lemur

[rigney]

You're right. I have actually been exploring the idea of dueling, which was allowed by law up until around the civil war, I think. It was not murder because it required consent and a "fair fight." Theoretically, people meeting each other voluntarily on a battlefield are also voluntarily meeting each other's challenge. But what does this have to do with legitimating retaliatory killing for atrocities? My main point with that was that you could get away with it easier if you could do it yourself or pay someone to do it with relatively little threat of punishment. That is how liberal/tolerant regimes facilitate retaliatory violence, i.e. by allowing people to do it themselves with relative impunity.

 

Wish I could get back to an in between perspective, but you young guys are to sharp for me. I can only suppose my problem is that I'm neither a progressive or rightist. How the hell could I be so wrong? Someone out there has to have an answer. Most of what I know comes off the internet. There must be at least another million folks who know more about the subject than I do. Here's a thing on Tim McVeigh that may be of some help. The one blow his is longevity after conviction..

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/08/if_timothy_mcveigh_had_been_a.html

 

http://savannahnow.com/troy-davis/2010-08-24/judge-troy-davis-not-innocent-macphail-murder

Edited November 28, 2010 by rigney

[Mr Skeptic]

Are you poking fun Mr. S? Yes, the bomber that gets it done can't be tried for anything, except in absentia. This guys job was to get it done and he failed! I think we should help him out and "perhaps" hang the Feds who duped him.

 

so we should feed and clothe the suicide bomber?

if a suicide bomber is caught and tried (unnecessary but thats an argument for another time)

the bomber should just be shot

they were ready to die so whats the difference?

 

I'm not joking. If they wanted to die, and become a martyr and an inspiration to others like him, and presumably go to heaven and claim his 77 virgins (or whatever the count has been increased to lately), why should we help him along with that part of his plan. No, let the failed suicide bomber sit in a cell for a while, so he can ponder his failure, the fact that his god isn't breaking him out of jail, etc. If he was so willing to die why should his punishment be death?

[John Cuthber]

Can I just clarify something here?

Suicide bombers are dead.

 

 

Attempted murderers (by bomb or otherwise) should be dealt with as run-of-the-mill criminals.

That way you rob them of "martyrdom" if that's what they were seeking.

As Mr S says, they can wait for God to free them or until they realise that's just not going to happen.

 

As for the idea that the trial is "unnecessary" I find myself wondering something.

Currently, these people are not killed; it would be unlawful to kill them.

Rigney and Dragonstar are proposing to have them killed, even though killing them would be illegal.

Is that conspiracy to commit murder?

If it is then, perhaps we should dispense with the trial (which they consider unneeded) and jail them for that conspiracy.

[TonyMcC]

It seems to me that most suicide bombers would say they are religious and act in a religious cause.

Presumably they believe in God and accept his all powerful nature.

Presumably they believe He created the world and all that is in it and could, if he so wished, alter things.

Most suicide bombers try to kill as many people as possible without regard to their victims individual religions or "sinfulness".

It seems to me that a successful bombing will kill people that God would not want killed.

I wonder how a bomber would reply to God's question "How dare you kill the good that I have created?"

[rigney]

I'm not joking. If they wanted to die, and become a martyr and an inspiration to others like him, and presumably go to heaven and claim his 77 virgins (or whatever the count has been increased to lately), why should we help him along with that part of his plan. No, let the failed suicide bomber sit in a cell for a while, so he can ponder his failure, the fact that his god isn't breaking him out of jail, etc. If he was so willing to die why should his punishment be death?

That would be the humanitarian thing to do I suppose. But an acquaintance of mine gave me another solution I like even better. Let's say this guy fails to explode and we catch him. As you say, don't kill him, but give him life behind bars to contemplate his failure. Now the best part is; he gets a shower of "pigs blood" every morning for the rest of his natural life. Of course, he would then get a descent bath that same morning with soap and water before dining on his pork breakfast. I believe others espousing such martyrdom would quickly find another profession. And the 77 virgins? I don't believe they would think much in him in his afterlife. Even the one resembling Roseanne Barr. Edited November 28, 2010 by rigney

[pioneer]

Life sentence instead of the death penalty comes from Christian teachings. Christ taught that one is to love their enemy. The Old Testament was based on an eye for an eye. Liberals tend to embrace the philosophy of Christ, because it reflects wisdom, even though many are atheists. Christ was given the death penalty, even though he was an innocent man who had done nothing worthy of the death penalty. The fear is an innocent man/women might be killed. If we save even one, that one could be you are I being ramrodded by the system.

Edited November 28, 2010 by pioneer

[rigney]

What is the point of this message Rigney, are you trying to insult people who think everyone should have a fair trial? Do you think that a liberal doesn't feel pain or miss his friends and relatives when they are senselessly killed by one of these people? Are you trying to say our own laws, the laws we think make our society superior to other societies, do not apply to the people you mention? Do you really think that killing these people will keep them from doing the things you mention?

 

it doesn't really matter if you kill them or lock them up in solitary confinement or lock them up with a sociopath whose only goal is to sexually torture as many people to death as they can for the rest of their lives. it doesn't matter because these people have belief, belief in some higher power that tells them they are superior and that they have to do these terrible things to get their reward in the after life.

 

These beliefs are called religion, religion, when wielded by a true believer will always trump reality. Religion is where this crazy stuff comes from, yes the smiling simpletons who handle rattlesnakes and drink poison, or the ones who practice ritual cannibalism at the behest of their God's avatar to the ones who are chosen by God to occupy the earth first to the ones who say an arch angel told their ancestors to convert everyone on earth at the point of a sword to the ones who got their instructions from God via special books handed down by angels so they would know to marry as many little girls as possible and have as many other little girls so they can get them pregnant too, yes all of them are guilty of these horrific things because at some point Some one decided God told them to do these horrific things.

 

A mission from God trumps mans laws, trumps his right to breath, trumps everything because God is impotent and requires his slaves to do his bidding.

 

So how would you handle the problem differently? Would you handle the problem differently or are you just trying to poke those who do not share your religious or political views because you need someone to blame the ineffectiveness of our attempts to keep these horrible things from happening?

Rarely do I find myself at a loss for words Moontanman, but I am totally awash in this blitzkrieg you've laid on me. Since I can't think of answers quickly enough or subtle to the point of making sense, I'll have to read this over a few times before replying.

 

Can I just clarify something here?

Suicide bombers are dead.

 

 

Attempted murderers (by bomb or otherwise) should be dealt with as run-of-the-mill criminals.

That way you rob them of "martyrdom" if that's what they were seeking.

As Mr S says, they can wait for God to free them or until they realise that's just not going to happen.

 

As for the idea that the trial is "unnecessary" I find myself wondering something.

Currently, these people are not killed; it would be unlawful to kill them.

Rigney and Dragonstar are proposing to have them killed, even though killing them would be illegal.

Is that conspiracy to commit murder?

If it is then, perhaps we should dispense with the trial (which they consider unneeded) and jail them for that conspiracy.

Tell me Cuthber, what in the world does run-of-the-mill criminals and terrorism have in common? Man, that's like washing the white and colored clothes together and using bleach only as a disinfect. Everything eventually becomes a dull shade of gray. Is that what our justice system is becoming, just a dull shade of gray? Spare me!

 

Life sentence instead of the death penalty comes from Christian teachings. Christ taught that one is to love their enemy. The Old Testament was based on an eye for an eye. Liberals tend to embrace the philosophy of Christ, because it reflects wisdom, even though many are atheists. Christ was given the death penalty, even though he was an innocent man who had done nothing worthy of the death penalty. The fear is an innocent man/women might be killed. If we save even one, that one could be you are I being ramrodded by the system.

Pioneer, you say; Liberals tend to embrace the philosophy of Christ, because it reflects wisdom? What "liberal" today can postulate such wise decision making? Edited November 28, 2010 by rigney