Originally Posted by Vox

The USA is famous for among other things trying the Nazis after the WW, it is necessaries to hold a trial for any human, and should be considered a right inherent in living, while I empathise with people who want to see dictators killed, your level of thinking on this topic is incredibly base and ill-considered. It is inherently wrong to take someone's life.

Originally Posted by Vox

The USA is famous for among other things trying the Nazis after the WW, it is necessaries to hold a trial for any human, and should be considered a right inherent in living, while I empathise with people who want to see dictators killed, your level of thinking on this topic is incredibly base and ill-considered. It is inherently wrong to take someone's life.

Originally Posted by Zesk

oh , he's dead or what? btw , finally another terrorist , first bin landen now gaddafi :3

Originally Posted by Vox

The USA is famous for among other things trying the Nazis after the WW, it is necessaries to hold a trial for any human, and should be considered a right inherent in living, while I empathise with people who want to see dictators killed, your level of thinking on this topic is incredibly base and ill-considered. It is inherently wrong to take someone's life.

Originally Posted by Hyde

Wrong is entirely subjective. You see wrong, I see right, in the case of Gaddafi. Please, do not put this argument up, as all morals are subjective, no one on the planet sees any single moral in the exact same manner.

Gaddafi better have been executed. At his age, life in prison wouldn't be too bad of a punishment. I'd have hoped for him to have his fingernails ripped off, toenails as well, ears cut off, teeth pulled, and nosehairs painfully plucked one by one, before getting shot.

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

Do you mean the Nuremburg trials? That wasn't at all just the USA, or even primarily the USA. For a better example see the Jews themselves in Israel peacefully trying Adolph Eichmann (who initiated and maintained the concentration camp slaughter).

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

And a note on this: a trial is simply an examination of the evidence to determine whether the suspect is guilty or not, whether there were mitigating circumstances, and what exactly his punishment should be as a result of the previous two factors. There are no mitigating circumstances and he is clearly guilty. A trial is unneeded, instead there's simply the argument of whether he should have received the death penalty. Honestly, if you were the soldiers fighting for (dead?) loved ones you probably would've ignored the arguments and shot him too.

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

I'm amazed that people are willing to put themselves on such high pedestals, criticizing men fighting for their lives against tyranny for not being nice to the poor defenseless tyrant.

Originally Posted by Vox

The USA is famous for among other things trying the Nazis after the WW, it is necessaries to hold a trial for any human, and should be considered a right inherent in living, while I empathise with people who want to see dictators killed, your level of thinking on this topic is incredibly base and ill-considered. It is inherently wrong to take someone's life.

Originally Posted by JayStar

But aside from that, it is not inherently wrong to kill a person. In a lot of peoples eyes, it's morally wrong. But most would agree that the world is a better place now, with him dead.

Originally Posted by Vox

The point is who determines the guilt and punishment, and in what environment, I want it to be a judge in a court room, you seem happy for it to be a politician based on what I just read, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong there. Also please don't retort with "it's obvious that he's guilty", that's evading the question.

Yea, having morals, such a high pedestal, bringing us back down and hopefully getting you to think straight, how about a little though experiment:

It's a typical one for philosophers, nothing new, but critical in explaining my though process here; You are on a bridge, below the bridge are train tracks, and beside you is a lever, on one set of tracks there are 3 people tied to the track, a train is heading for them, if you pull the lever it will move the train to the other track, where another person is tied down, do you let the train kill the three, or take responsibility for killing the one?
Personally I say your wrong to do either, but ultimately you must sacrifice the one for the many, I don't think of that as saving three lives but killing one.
Now the fun part, let us suppose that the 'one group' is your friend, in that situation, I would now do nothing, and let the three die, and I know that I should kill my friend to save those three, I am not a strong enough person to do that however. In this case, from an outside perspective, I should be in some way punished for the manslaughter of 3 people, along with anyone else involved. Do you understand what I am trying to get across?