Except that you have no evidence of that other than the Pentagon's say-so, and they aren't known for their honesty and forthrightness
You mean besides the unedited footage that is must longer than the footage at wikileaks, right? The "good samaritans" came on to the field of battle and assisted the enemy during a firefight. Those "victims" were the enemy. If you don't want to be a target, don't make yourself a target by helping the enemy during a firefight.
Only in the mind of someone who is an evil, selfish, deluded coward would shooting at people who are trying to help one's enemies be considered wrong. This is war, not some stupid video game. Grow the fuck up and stop being a little bitch before someone comes along, bends you over a barrel, fucks you in the ass then cuts your head off because you are an infidel.
Now, go wrap a little more aluminum foil around your head to keep out the signals the " security-industrial complex" is using to read your mind.
After reading the comments in this post, I think I am going to go buy stock in Reynolds Aluminum. I never knew how many foil-hatters there were in the world and on the internet.
But, do you agree with editing exculpatory footage out of videos and then treating the video as the whole story?
I will feel sorry for the people on the other side of the planet just as soon as they start hunting down and killing the people on their side of the planet that are sending people to this side, to this country, to kill us. I will feel sorry for them when they stop supporting people who say I should die because I don't believe in their religion of murder and conversion at the point of a sword, or barrel of a gun if you prefer.
You need to do a little more research, dumbass. His wife admitted that Willingham confessed to her. He was guilty. He did it because she threatened to divorce him.
And, again, you have no one who was executed then determined to be guilty. Again, you fail.
Possibly doesn't cut it. Either they are innocent or they are not innocent. Now, either put up or shut up.
You are afraid and outraged at something that you have no proof of having happened. What is wrong with your emotion is that it is just emotion based on a hypothetical premise.
Oh and about Willingham, from your own source:
According to the affidavits, Willingham's ex-wife had told Ronnie that Willingham had confessed to her that he had set the fire. Stacy herself told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on 25 October 2009 that during a final prison meeting just weeks before he was put to death Willingham admitted setting the fire, as a response to Stacy's alleged threats of divorce the night before.
You want to keep murderers alive with a chance to murder again. I don't.
You don't want people executed, I suggest that you explain to the relatives of the victims of murder why the murderer should live.
You say that many, many of those who have been executed have been innocent. Once again, name them, every one them proven to be innocent, or STFU.
Oh, really? Yet, that is exactly what is implied by your posts.
I said that my first objection to the death penalty is that innocent people were executed.
Name them.
Do you mean that if I valued the lives of the victims, I'd want to execute an innocent person?
False dichotomy.
First a guy loses his children in a fire (at least sometimes through no fault of his own). Then, on top of that tragedy (and losing your child is the worst tragedy in the world) the district attorney falsely accuses him of murder, prosecutes him, gets a stupid jury to convict him, and executes an innocent man for arson.
Appeal to fear, appeal to emotion, and hypothetical worst case scenario which is a form of cherry picking.
The rest of your post is based on those false premises and outright lies.
And, even if he doesn't face the death penalty, he would still prosecuted.
How does that do his children any good?
How does that do the surviving members of the victim's family any good?
Or, do you suggest that we not prosecute anyone, ever, because they might be innocent?
So, stop crowing about how much better SpaceX is than NASA when SpaceX is just reusing NASA's leftover tech from 30 years ago.
They can put years into "simplifying the systems to improve reliability while reducing costs" but the fact is they are not doing anything new or groundbreaking. They are simply riding NASA's coattails.
Which is why we execute people who unlawfully take the lives of others. To keep them from continuing to kill others and to punish them for taking the lives they have taken. Their lives are forfeit.
Oh, and I almost forgot, the death penalty is not supposed to undo or mitigate the deaths. It is supposed to punish the killing. It is punishment, not reparation.
he bleeding hearts have decided for everyone, including all victims everywhere, without consulting said victims that the sentence the man...
There, fixed that for you. Just because you don't think it makes the victims feel better, it doesn't mean that the victims feel the same way you do. Now, STFU and stop putting your opinion in other people's mouths.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean besides the unedited footage that is must longer than the footage at wikileaks, right? The "good samaritans" came on to the field of battle and assisted the enemy during a firefight. Those "victims" were the enemy. If you don't want to be a target, don't make yourself a target by helping the enemy during a firefight.
Only in the mind of someone who is an evil, selfish, deluded coward would shooting at people who are trying to help one's enemies be considered wrong. This is war, not some stupid video game. Grow the fuck up and stop being a little bitch before someone comes along, bends you over a barrel, fucks you in the ass then cuts your head off because you are an infidel.
Now, go wrap a little more aluminum foil around your head to keep out the signals the " security-industrial complex" is using to read your mind.
The U.S. government would not have to kidnap him. All they have to do is indict him and request extradition.
All the foil-hatters like to talk about kidnapping and the like. But, it is not even remotely necessary.
After reading the comments in this post, I think I am going to go buy stock in Reynolds Aluminum. I never knew how many foil-hatters there were in the world and on the internet.
Like they would tell the truth about such a thing?
But, do you agree with editing exculpatory footage out of videos and then treating the video as the whole story?
I will feel sorry for the people on the other side of the planet just as soon as they start hunting down and killing the people on their side of the planet that are sending people to this side, to this country, to kill us. I will feel sorry for them when they stop supporting people who say I should die because I don't believe in their religion of murder and conversion at the point of a sword, or barrel of a gun if you prefer.
But, Polanski is a famous director and a darling of European arts and elite.
This guy isn't.
Because, he could probably be arrested and tried for espionage.
Looks like my cowardly mod stalkers are back .
You need to do a little more research, dumbass. His wife admitted that Willingham confessed to her. He was guilty. He did it because she threatened to divorce him.
And, again, you have no one who was executed then determined to be guilty. Again, you fail.
Possibly doesn't cut it. Either they are innocent or they are not innocent. Now, either put up or shut up.
You are afraid and outraged at something that you have no proof of having happened. What is wrong with your emotion is that it is just emotion based on a hypothetical premise.
Oh and about Willingham, from your own source:
You want to keep murderers alive with a chance to murder again. I don't.
You don't want people executed, I suggest that you explain to the relatives of the victims of murder why the murderer should live.
You say that many, many of those who have been executed have been innocent. Once again, name them, every one them proven to be innocent, or STFU.
Oh, really? Yet, that is exactly what is implied by your posts.
Name them.
False dichotomy.
Appeal to fear, appeal to emotion, and hypothetical worst case scenario which is a form of cherry picking.
The rest of your post is based on those false premises and outright lies.
And, even if he doesn't face the death penalty, he would still prosecuted.
Or, do you suggest that we not prosecute anyone, ever, because they might be innocent?
In other words, you don't have a single name. Thanks for playing, you lose.
So, stop crowing about how much better SpaceX is than NASA when SpaceX is just reusing NASA's leftover tech from 30 years ago.
They can put years into "simplifying the systems to improve reliability while reducing costs" but the fact is they are not doing anything new or groundbreaking. They are simply riding NASA's coattails.
I mean Exodus 21:12-14.
Most, including myself, consider the death penalty to be justice.
Shouldn't that be "The Ten Things You Shouldn't Do Unless You Do Them At My Insistence Or In My Name"?
It was resended a short while later in Exodus 20:12-14.
Oh, and it is more properly translated as "You will not murder" not "You will not kill".
And, I am not a christian or a religionist.
And I give you an F for believing that the life of a murderer is worth more than the lives of his victims.
Which is why we execute people who unlawfully take the lives of others. To keep them from continuing to kill others and to punish them for taking the lives they have taken. Their lives are forfeit.
No, it doesn't. You are purposefully misconstruing the GP's statement, which is intellectually dishonest.
Here, does this make you whiny ass feel better:
Oh, and I almost forgot, the death penalty is not supposed to undo or mitigate the deaths. It is supposed to punish the killing. It is punishment, not reparation.
There, fixed that for you. Just because you don't think it makes the victims feel better, it doesn't mean that the victims feel the same way you do. Now, STFU and stop putting your opinion in other people's mouths.
Please list all the innocent people who have been sent to their death.
Well, let's look at what actually happened. This was done specifically so an hispanic person would be elected. An hispanic person was elected.
Sure, it could help multiple minorities get elected, but you know what, that is not democratic either.
This is political correctness and affirmative action applied to elections and it is wrong.