freecounterpoint: One question left:

Monday, April 13, 2009

One question left:

Hanging or keelhauling?

19 comments:

Tecumseh said...: To be technical about it: hang them high, or let them drop (a la Saddam)? The traditional punishment in this case is the former. But Planet Pepe will go for an OJ trial, instead.; 4/13/2009 1:19 PM
Pepe le Pew said...: If they didn't see it fit to shoot them when they had a chance, they need to try them properly now. I don't see how there is a way around that.; 4/13/2009 2:41 PM
Tecumseh said...: Define "properly". Summary judgement for pirates caught in flagrante on the high seas is perfectly proper anywhere besides the cloaca of Pepea.; 4/13/2009 3:30 PM
Tecumseh said...: Pretty good potshots. Compare that to the Frenchies shooting they own man...; 4/13/2009 3:35 PM
Tecumseh said...: Pepe, Pepe, you'll never understand subtle distinctions. There is one law that applies to citizens of one country, inside that country -- and another law for barbarians, head-hackers, saboteurs, pirates, out-of-uniform combatants, and assorted lawless baddies caught with their pants down. Go back to law 101 and figure out the distinction, mon cher. Till then, you flunk the course with a big fat F for totalement nul.; 4/13/2009 5:47 PM
Pepe le Pew said...: a big fat F for totalement nul.

You are "giving grades" now ? Too funny but I didn't sign up for the angry right wing nut course.; 4/13/2009 6:25 PM
Tecumseh said...: Pepe, Pepe, Pepe. Your mind is simply impervious to logic. When someone hijacks a ship, kidnaps its captain, and points an AK47 at his head, it's not a question whether he "displeases" someone -- as you imply with your bulshitty (but oh so pinko) moral equivalence with a blogger in Iran who may displease the mullahs with his postings, and then gets offed in some dungeon. But rather, it's a question of said pirate, or AQ boy, or Pepean buddy, or whatever, putting himself, by his own volition and free choice, outside the law: by definition, he becomes a pariah, and renounces ipso facto any legal protection he may have had; and habeas corpus for pirates on the high seas is only something belonging to a fevered, illogical pinko mind, not to US jurisprudence.; 4/13/2009 6:25 PM
Pepe le Pew said...: renounces ipso facto any legal protection he may have had;

Jesus fucking christ man, you are thick. This is not a legal issue - again, you may very well be perfectly entitled to impale them (and if you aren't at this point, it isn't beneath the USA to change the law to make sure you can). But when you behave like barbarians, even wrt barbarians, it makes you no better than them - capice ?; 4/13/2009 6:28 PM
Tecumseh said...: And yes, your grade is an F, whether you like it or not. No, you did not sign up for a course. But you freely expose your imperviousness to logical thinking for the whole world to see. And the result is a big fat zero, if you prefer a numerical rating.; 4/13/2009 6:28 PM
Tecumseh said...: Define "barbarian", Pepe. Far as I can tell, you support any and all head-hackers, as long as they attack Americans. Defending against evil is not being a "barbarian". But I don't expect a logically challenged pinko to understand such a subtle concept.; 4/13/2009 6:31 PM
Pepe le Pew said...: you are doing nothing more than wrapping your base instincts in legalese. But it is interesting that you have no objection to letting barbarians dictate your behavior and have no qualms emulating their behavior. Remember "Oh, but why do they hate us so" - there's your answer.; 4/13/2009 6:40 PM
Tecumseh said...: You are hopeless, Pepe. Your perverted logic is exactly what leads pinkos to fail to see the difference between a criminal murdering a victim, and said criminal getting his just punishment. Or, the difference a head-hacker like Zarkawi hacking the head of some poor chap, and the US army blowing up Zarky to smithereens. Idiocy is always painful to contemplate. A sad spectacle.; 4/13/2009 7:49 PM
Pepe le Pew said...: The perverted logic is yours tec: how do you establish that anyone is a head hacker without a fair trial ?; 4/13/2009 8:07 PM
Pepe le Pew said...: so, like I said - you off the hacker during special ops, otherwise you behave like a civilized nation. locking anyone up eternally without oversight is what banana republics do.; 4/13/2009 8:09 PM
Tecumseh said...: In a self-parody of pinko débile mentality, Pepe asks:how do you establish that anyone is a head hacker without a fair trial?
Answer: you just watch the video they post, dummkopf.; 4/13/2009 8:26 PM
Pepe le Pew said...: great example: they're all masked.; 4/13/2009 9:25 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: That's what Le Pew would say to himself, as his head got lopped off, "the catch 22 irony of it all. Here I am getting my head lopped off, and I can't even know if the loppers are really loppers until they've had their fair trial".
Having your head lopped off, on PP, you see, is prima facie evidence of nothing in particular at all. Actions aren't really real until Ginsburg has had her say.
That moral nullity is true Barbarism.; 4/13/2009 9:33 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: Oh, the answer to the question is keelhauling.; 4/13/2009 9:34 PM
Mr roT said...: thx. agreed, aa; 4/13/2009 10:12 PM