Sometimes they are, but, you can also bet that his defense attorney is flooding the legal system with appeal after appeal and extension after extension. Oh we found new evidence! Oh we have a new angle! It's a safe bet that his lawyer will try everything they can to delay or get rid of the death penalty. Worst case scenario for them is if the judge gets tired of hearing his appeals and extensions and stops them from coming in.

I hope they film the execution. Can we make it an ole timey hanging and televise it? I'm thinking they should send him to Utah so they can take him down by firing squad. That's close enough where I can take a bus and attend dressed in a shirt adorned with the American flag.

What do you think this is? Britain? You're not supposed to wear the American flag as clothing. It's basic flag etiquette. You're a ****ing terrorist, dude.

Pressure cooker bomb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Placed in a jam packed crowd.

Not to worry, we can send him to Florida where he can choose lethal injection or Ol' Sparky, we can send him to New Hampshire where hanging is authorized if lethal injection cannot be performed, Oklahoma uses the firing squad if no other option is available, South Carolina he can pick between the cocktail and ol' sparky, Utah uses the firing squad if the drugs cannot be obtained, in Washington the inmate can choose to be hanged.

See, hanging is still used.

Source

It's natural for a people or a nation to feel some sort of hatred towards a bomber, but to act on that hatred seems a little barbaric. Is it important that this guy suffers or that this guy dies? There probably are some reasons why that could be, but I don't think satisfying people's bloodlust is one of them.

I think government's business should be preventing suffering, not causing it. And when the people are faced with a moral crisis, they should be guided, not goaded.

I understand where you are coming from. And yes, emotion plays a big part of my opinion on the matter. I just think there has to be some lines, that if crossed, results in you being deleted.

That guy and his brother randomly placed those shrapnel filled bombs without zero regard for who they ripped apart.

That's one of those lines IMO.

Out of curiosity, does it piss you off when people put IEDs on the sides of roads in Iraq where kids/civilians walk by to and from the market every day?

Last time I stand up for you
:shycouch:
I have absolutely no idea what that means. As to the part in red,
No I wasn't and the part in green yes I did, but that was in another thread. It wasn't cool and I apologise for it but you just refuse to listen to anyone once your mind is made up. Nevertheless that does not excuse it. It however does not by the same token entitle you to carry one insult through to further threads when it has not been repeated, and to make a case for my being that sort of person, which I am not.
Completely pointless. Again, one moment of lost control and suddenly I can't make up for it by creating that thread?
As I say, it wasn't in this thread.
Here we go with muddying the waters. Again. The part about condescension seems to be inexplicable to anyone but you. The funny/pathetic thing about this is that I actually felt bad about insulting you in the other thread and thought I'll throw the old olive branch out here, and try to explain what I think she meant. Somehow that turns into condenscension?
The thing is, I know you are serious about this. AND you'd provide the soundtrack wouldn't you? Make his last moments hell on Earth! :laughing:

For those who don't know me, you should be aware that I am not the type who insults people. I try to maintain a sense of calm and maturity here. Most times I succeed but like anyone I can lose it. Soulflower you probably know now that I have been given a warning about that from the mods. That's fine, it's merited but I also know that it's merely a knee-jerk reaction to yourself having received a warning for the same thing. Tit for tat, but it's hardly the mature thing to do now is it? If I were warned or banned over something and knew others to have made the same error I would mention that others had done it, but I doubt I would point a finger at a particular member and say "What about him?" Just seems childish to me and a case of petty revenge.

Anyway, the point is that I wrote the post "like her usual posts" because this is quite true. Whenever someone misinterprets or does not understand one of your posts you invariably reply with "Didn't you read my post?" or some variant of that. Only when really pushed do you explain what you mean. If I write something and someone does not understand it I clarify it; I see no problem doing that, even if it was really clear in the first place. Sometimes how it sounds in your head is much different to how it comes out in the forum. But you never want to explain. You seem to think everyone should intuitively know what you're talking about, when sometimes it seems like even you don't. So when you replied to Chula's post about the "attractive boy" with "didn't you read my post?" this was just another example of your frankly inexplicable reluctance to explain anything you write, or clarify it. Chula was genuinely, so far as I could see, concerned you were trivialising or even glorifying this terrorist, and if someone had that idea then I would be as quick as I could to disabuse them of that notion, not write what to me is a very condescending post in itself.

But you do what you like. I won't be trying to defend you again, which is what I was doing, believe it or not, as everything I say seems to rile you up. I won't however stop pointing out when your posts make no sense, or need to be clarified, and I won't stop disagreeing with you when I think you're wrong. That, after all, is what a forum is all about, no?