Muammar Gaddafi - Dead

Rosencrantz said:
Mario4Ever said:
Dr. Javelin said:
ghostyTrickster said:
You know, it's one thing to fight against someone who is opressing you.

It's another think to kill him/her in a bloody rage.

The latter is just sick. Even if he was terrible, nobody deserves death. Kinda why I don't believe in the Death Penalty over here, but I digress.
Click to expand...
Hitler deserved to die. Stalin deserved to die. Bin Laden deserved to die. People who have killed thousands of other people deserve death because it's the only surefire way to stop them from sontinuing their massacres. Gaddafi got what he deserved.
Click to expand...

"Why do people insist on creating things that will inevitably be destroyed? Why do people cling to life, knowing that they must someday die? ...Knowing that none of it will have meant anything once they do?"

That said, I support the death penalty if it is carried out efficiently (e.g. not in twenty years) and after there is no room for reasonable doubt. HOWEVER, I see no legitimate reason for Gadhafi's death (if I misspelled his name, *bleep* it, I can't find a consistent one). Same goes for Hitler, Stalin, and Bin Laden. Why? Because their worth was measured in relation to that of other human lives, and in my opinion, we are all equally insignificant. In other words, I don't see mass murder as a determinant of requiring death oneself. Generally, if the potential victims belong to causes or ideologies I support (e.g. scientists and video game designers) and/or are close to me (family, friends, acquaintances), their lives are worth defending. Otherwise, they mean nothing (that's true for most people; if two people, one being a stranger with whom you were ideologically opposed, let's say Gadhafi, and a close family member were at risk of death, and you could only save one, which would it be?). For the record, anything I do not condemn is not automatically considered justified, or vice-versa. I just tend not to take sides.
Click to expand...


Holy *bleep*, never talk again.

Can this guy be demoted simply for having the worst opinions known to man?
Click to expand...
No...
 
Rosencrantz said:
Holy fuck, never talk again.

Can this guy be demoted simply for having the worst opinions known to man?
Click to expand...
I strongly second that notion.

Seriously, aren't people supposed to get out of this pathetic, misanthropic pseudo-nihilistic viewpoint by the time they're 16, at latest?
 
Remilia Bloody Scarlet said:
Rosencrantz said:
Holy *bleep*, never talk again.

Can this guy be demoted simply for having the worst opinions known to man?
Click to expand...
I strongly second that notion.

Seriously, aren't people supposed to get out of this pathetic, misanthropic pseudo-nihilistic viewpoint by the time they're 16, at latest?
Click to expand...
you know people have a right to view things they way they do just because you and i don't believe what he says doesn't mean we should scold him for expressing his views :posh:
 
When you say that all human lives are worthless and insignificant, and thus mass murderers shouldn't be given appropriate punishment for their crimes against humanity, you and your opinions don't deserve to be treated with respect.
 
Remilia Bloody Scarlet said:
When you say that all human lives are worthless and insignificant, and thus mass murderers shouldn't be given appropriate punishment for their crimes against humanity, you and your opinions don't deserve to be treated with respect.
Click to expand...
i'm just saying he has the right to make his statement
 
He does. He already made it.

We don't have to respect it, though.
 
Raven said:
Remilia Bloody Scarlet said:
When you say that all human lives are worthless and insignificant, and thus mass murderers shouldn't be given appropriate punishment for their crimes against humanity, you and your opinions don't deserve to be treated with respect.
Click to expand...
i'm just saying he has the right to make his statement
Click to expand...
And we have the right to call him awful for the statement he made.
 
Or we could just not respond to whatever he's saying...


Would you not agree that whatever you're doing probably isn't going to change his opinion in any way
 
Nope. It won't help at all in changing his actual opinion.

But maybe if enough of us call him out, he might just fold to the peer pressure. Wouldn't that be lovely.
 
Mariwikdor calm down. I don't believe anyone deserves to die unless they've done something really bad and reforming that person is impossible. I still can't comprehend with your logic even if someone translates it. (No offense, but I seriously fell like I been left in the dark about something that supports your logical explanation.)
 
lonelyArchangel said:
I... I think I died a little on the inside after reading this thread...

Seriously though, is it just me or is Mariowikedor some Christian supremist who thinks all other religions are terrorists?
Click to expand...
Wait a second what does Christianity have to do with this?

Anti-Muslim is not always equal to Christian.
 
I think it's a shame anybody had to be killed, and the specific method of Gadaffi's death was rather disturbing... but I'm not going to cry for him, he was a mass murderer and I'm glad he won't be causing any more deaths.


Marwikedor said:
But the rebel scum is NOT a peaceful Islamic regime they are fanatical Islamic fundamentalists. don't you remember the nightmare of the Muslim Brotherhood taking over in neighboring Egypt?! Saddam Hussein in Iraq also didn't let terrorists in his country, Christians were as well off in Iraq under his rule (and Saddam's righthandman, Teriq Aziz, was a Catholic) NOW CHRISTIANS IN IRAQ ARE GETTING KILLED BECAUSE OF RETARD GEORGE BUSH! Bush was just a retard but Barack Obama is an evil man and he knows full well what he's doing.
Click to expand...

You're a *bleep*ing lunatic.

Mario4Ever said:
"Why do people insist on creating things that will inevitably be destroyed? Why do people cling to life, knowing that they must someday die? ...Knowing that none of it will have meant anything once they do?"

That said, I support the death penalty if it is carried out efficiently (e.g. not in twenty years) and after there is no room for reasonable doubt. HOWEVER, I see no legitimate reason for Gadhafi's death (if I misspelled his name, *bleep* it, I can't find a consistent one). Same goes for Hitler, Stalin, and Bin Laden. Why? Because their worth was measured in relation to that of other human lives, and in my opinion, we are all equally insignificant. In other words, I don't see mass murder as a determinant of requiring death oneself. Generally, if the potential victims belong to causes or ideologies I support (e.g. scientists and video game designers) and/or are close to me (family, friends, acquaintances), their lives are worth defending. Otherwise, they mean nothing (that's true for most people; if two people, one being a stranger with whom you were ideologically opposed, let's say Gadhafi, and a close family member were at risk of death, and you could only save one, which would it be?). For the record, anything I do not condemn is not automatically considered justified, or vice-versa. I just tend not to take sides.
Click to expand...

You're either an emo twelve-year-old or a budding sociopath.
 
Marwikedor said:
Mason said:
And how did you gain your "education" on this? It sounds like mindless dribble. Do you believe everything you hear on TV?
Click to expand...
A lot of people belive it you're just not supposed to say it
Click to expand...

IZ THE LIBRUL MEDIA

no really i don't think as many people believe it as you seem to think

you see most people aren't complete loonies.

Marwikedor said:
SuperMario25 said:
I think England made the right
choice, anyway why the hell are we talking about WWII when we should be talking about Muammar Gaddafi
Click to expand...
Because he should not have been killed. While the lesser of two evils may still be evil (like how hitler was the lesser of two evils by far when compared with stalin and the Red Flag of Communism), we should still back the lesser of two evils especially when Christians aren't being killed.
Click to expand...
Oh, you're one of those.

1. Er, last I checked Stalin (while still evil, of course) didn't perpetrate a holocaust against thousands of innocent jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and basically anybody else who rubbed him the wrong way.

2. So if Christians aren't being killed, it doesn't matter? It's totally okay if Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists or Atheists are getting killed left and right as long as the Christians are fine?

Marwikedor said:
Everything is true about that except the facts.
Click to expand...

Right. With the exception of the things that are true, it's true.

This is my new favorite quote.
 
Northern Verve said:
Marwikedor said:
The blonde hair blue eye crap: Everything is true about that except the facts. Stalin was worse than Hitler. Hitler just wanted to fight the Soviet Union which killed far more and threatened the world with nucleur devestation for DECADES. To make a long story super-short, the Nazis came to power on the promise of overthrowing the diabolical Soviet empire and bringing Germany out of the depression. Poland could have allied with the Axis powers because as history came to show it sure was better off than under the Bolsheviks. But England basically makes the promise to Poland hey if Hitler attacks you we will fight on your side. But England thought the USSR and Nazi Germany would just duke it out. However, then the USSR and Germany sign a non-agression treaty which stuns the world because everyone thought the fascists and communists would come to blows from the very begining. Because Poland is enboldened due to Enlgand's promise, they don't ally with Germany. Then, lo and behold, Germany invades Poland and Russia flanks Poland from behind. They team up together! England is flabbergasted and doesn't know what to do. Regardless, England and France are at war with Germany within the week. Later on, hitler breaks the non-agression treaty and attacks Russia. The whole mess would have been avoided if we just would have let the Third Reich and the satanic Soviet Empire just go to war with eachother and destory each other. For the millionth time, Stalin was worse than Hitler. He killed 30 million of his own people. Fellow Communist chairman Moa of China killed 70 MILLION of his own people. The United States did NOT win WWII. It was a disaster. All of Eastern Europe was sold out to the evil beyond words USSR and results in a cold war with our former Russian allies from 1945-1990 DURING THAT TIME WE MAY WELL ALL HAVE BEEN KILLED IN NUCLUER WAR! But we didn't, and luck and luck alone (well prayer too) we have to thank for our sorry lives. Would this have happend if we just would have let Nazi Germany and the Soviet Empire kill each other and not get involved? No sir it would not have. England should have played their cards better to prevent the unessesary war.
Click to expand...

Yes in Statistics Stalin was worse then Hitler. And they were both bad guys. But by the time Germany attacked Russia the British were still fighting and France was under Nazi Control. I don't think it would of been wise for British to say "Oh you're attacking Russia? Fine Fine we pull out of this war" because of the torture the people under Nazi rule was going through. And for one, Russia did kinda need the Allies help for Distraction. Germany would of actually beat Russia if the British and other Allies did not help in North Africa for example (For invasions like D-Day we also needed Russia then) because Germany could actually put it's full strength against Russia which the Western Allies were splitting. Cutting off North Africa lessened gasoline supplies for Germany needed to use their tanks or airplanes. Had Germany had no opposition besides Russia, no matter what the determination of the Soviet Union or Winter did: Germany would have eventually triumphed. Yes we still got the cold war out of the whole thing but is Nazi World Domination really better then the Cold War? Germany probably could of also eventually found out how to make a Nuclear Bomb even if it ended up being slower then Russia did. The Nazis and Hitler in particular with Nuclear Weapons is far more scarier then any Russian leader with them. It just might of been Cold War only between the US and Germany. Nothing ever comes out 100% good out of War but I much would of preferred the timeline we ended up having instead of Nazis still running amuck. History sometimes has that Luck factor, Nuclear War was very scary during those times but it didn't happen so therefore the result we got was still better then had we let only Germany and Russia fight eachother.

As for the topic on Gaddafi. I don't know what to say. And while there will always be Terrorist regimes somewhere, capturing and/or killing the leaders that supported or even lead such terrible acts are still a blow to the enemies morale
Click to expand...

Just quoting this because I have a feeling Marwikedor didn't see this since a new page was made not long after I made this post.
 
Scarecrow von Steuben said:
1. Er, last I checked Stalin (while still evil, of course) didn't perpetrate a holocaust against thousands of innocent jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and basically anybody else who rubbed him the wrong way.
Click to expand...
Stalin caused the deaths of around 20 million people. But of course, both he and Hitler were evil men.
 
In short, there are people who should be exterminated because they are a threat to a certain society (and by that I mean they freaking kill innocent people). The Libyans had horrible lives when Gaddafi was governing them. You aren't even allowed to speak a certain language. So their rebellion is completely justified. And I will go ahead and admit it, the video where they torture him is horrible to see. But if someone killed my mother/father/sister/brother/son/daughter I would probably do the same thing they did.
 
Rosencrantz said:
Nope. It won't help at all in changing his actual opinion.

But maybe if enough of us call him out, he might just fold to the peer pressure. Wouldn't that be lovely.
Click to expand...

Sorry to disappoint you, Rosencrantz, but I'm not going to change or withhold my opinion simply because it irks some people. Life isn't all unicorns and rainbows, and just because I don't have the urge to hold hands with everyone and sing fucking "Kumbaya" doesn't give you any reason to pull this ad hominem crap, and that goes for a few others (demoted? seriously?). You don't have to agree with my opinion, you don't have to respect it, but leave your criticisms for the opinion. I don't deserve to be everyone's fucking punching bag for speaking my mind, especially when I've been and will be nothing but kind to everyone with whom I've had and will have correspondence on here and on the wiki.

Now that that shit's out of the way, if Gadhafi had killed someone close to me, a family member or a friend, then I'd feel different. I'd be one of the first to say "Off with his head!" , but since he didn't, I can't say that. To clarify my earlier position, I don't think all humans are worthless. I just don't think they get their worth from being human. Their worth comes from their relationships with and to other people, which is why I value my family more highly than I do the hundreds of strangers I encounter on a daily basis and why a scientist means more to me than a radical Muslim jihadist (not referring to Gadhafi here, just speaking in general terms). Like I also said, anything I don't outright condemn is NOT automatically justified, or vice-versa. What people (including Gadhafi) do with their lives is their choice, and unless it involves me or those close to me, their problem. Did Gadhafi deserve to die? It's not my place to say, but I will say that his fate was his doing, a direct result of trying to forcibly control others' lives when we are the ones who decide the courses our lives will take. The common man has power. Gadhafi's death is an example of what happens when the common man decides to use it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back