# Kim Jong Il has Died



## mangaTom (Dec 19, 2011)

Kim Jong Il, North Korea's mercurial and enigmatic leader, has died. He was 69.
Kim's death was announced Monday by state television from the North Korean capital, Pyongyang.
Kim is believed to have suffered a stroke in 2008 but appeared relatively vigorous in photos and video from recent trips to China and Russia and in numerous trips around the country carefully documented by state media.


The leader, reputed to have had a taste for cigars, cognac and gourmet cuisine, was believed to have had diabetes and heart disease.
The news came as North Korea prepared for a hereditary succession. Kim Jong Il inherited power after his father, revered North Korean founder Kim Il Sung, died in 1994.
In September 2010, Kim Jong Il unveiled his third son, the twenty-something Kim Jong Un, as his successor, putting him in high-ranking posts.

Yup it's true

http://abcnews.go.co...56#.Tu6uK3ozKSp


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Dec 19, 2011)

Wow. Was not expecting that. No word of how?


----------



## Celice (Dec 19, 2011)

I felt bad the years back when the photos first showed up showing his state of health. It doesn't matter what the man did and and how horrible his rule may have been for those stuck with him--seeing someone in that state bothers me. No one should have to experience that.


----------



## 431unknown (Dec 19, 2011)

Heart attack, stroke, or diabetes... Take your pick.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Dec 19, 2011)

Huh...he was one cool motherfucker.


----------



## Blebleman (Dec 19, 2011)

Ain't no party like a Pyongyang party, cause a Pyongyang party is ABSOLUTELY MANDATORY.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJNBfBr-OGU


----------



## smile72 (Dec 19, 2011)

I'm shocked. Hopefully conditions for the people may improve in North Korea, it's very very very unlikely but it might be possible.


----------



## DinohScene (Dec 19, 2011)

It would happen sooner or later.

It was just a matter of time since his health started to degenerate.


----------



## Hells Malice (Dec 19, 2011)

The world will miss that crazy little bastard.


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Dec 19, 2011)

Another Horcrux has been destroyed.


----------



## Hop2089 (Dec 19, 2011)

2011=A bad year for dictators

Nice to see another evil person die, I hope Kim Jung Un does a good job in power, North Korea deserves better.  Also open North Korea for trade in 5 years time.


----------



## yuyuyup (Dec 19, 2011)

I love Kim Jong Il I'll always hold him in my heart


----------



## Snailface (Dec 19, 2011)

Many people may not have held the best opinion of Kim Jong Il, but you have to admit, he had a good sense of fashion (and he liked to look at things  ).

http://kimjongillookingatthings.tumblr.com/


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 19, 2011)

smile72 said:


> I'm shocked. Hopefully conditions for the people may improve in North Korea, it's very very very unlikely but it might be possible.


How do you know they're bad? According to their official webpage:




> BUILDINGS





> The traditional Korean buildings are adapted to the natures scenery and the temperate weather of the country and reflect the national character of the Korean people.
> The traditional houses had only one floor high. The main part of the house was generally composed by three rooms:
> The one next to the kitchen where the old family members lived, other that was used for library, and the third one called 'sarangbang' where the couple of the son lived.
> Between the different parts of the house they had big doors that could be opened in case of necessity of creating a big free space.
> ...




Gonna be hard proving otherwise, seeing that footage is scarce.


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Dec 19, 2011)

Snailface said:


> Many people may not have held the best opinion of Kim Jong Il, but you have to admit, he had a good sense of fashion (and he liked to look at things  ).
> 
> http://kimjongillook...ngs.tumblr.com/



If he has an open casket funeral, and if there is a picture of him, there should be one that says "Kim Jong-Il looking at his eyelids"


----------



## yuyuyup (Dec 19, 2011)

http://kotaku.com/5869207/video-game-almost-predicted-kim-jong+ils-death


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 19, 2011)

Meh. Couldn't care less.


----------



## Snailface (Dec 19, 2011)

yuyuyup said:


> http://kotaku.com/58...-jong+ils-death


Kotaku's really good at finding a videogame tangent for anything. XD
/sarcasm


----------



## amptor (Dec 19, 2011)

lol @ usa occupying north korea.  that is never going to happen, Kokotaku.

also don't get your hopes up guys, this guy provided his sons with everything they have including their upbringing.  all it is doing is bringing in another man to power to make nukes and do whatever crazy things his dad was doing.

imho the kid would be better off either discontinuing the nuclear program and leaving everything as it is now or doing that and trying to help undo the damage caused by his father with the relations with south korea and the rest of the world.  will this happen? probably not. I expect more nuke testing in the future.  sad.

but occupation of north korea? lmao. whatever. not going to happen.


----------



## omgpwn666 (Dec 19, 2011)

How convenient that he died from a natural cause, saved all his enemies lots of work. And lol 69.


----------



## ChaosZero816 (Dec 19, 2011)

Didn't see this coming. I wonder if his son would continue his work or would bring a change to North Korea.
I also wonder how this will impact the rest of the world.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 19, 2011)

amptor said:


> lol @ usa occupying north korea.  that is never going to happen, Kokotaku.
> 
> also don't get your hopes up guys, this guy provided his sons with everything they have including their upbringing.  all it is doing is bringing in another man to power to make nukes and do whatever crazy things his dad was doing.
> 
> ...



You're touching a very interesting issue as far as South Korea is concerned - they're a very peculiar "case" when it comes to global politics. You're assuming that South Koreans actually "want" to become a part of the "rest of the world" and I assure you that most actually don't. There's nothing to gain for them from good relations - they just want to be safe in their haven. We know they have a nuclear program, which would normally lead to the World's No.1 Police Officer to go rampant on their soil, but we also know they actually have them and aren't really afraid of using them, hence U.S.A takes its yearly chill-pill. I doubt anything will change in South Korea, and if you had the pleasure of talking with a middle-class South Korea citizen, you would come to a similar conclusion. They don't *want* to change, they like it as it is and they honestly believe that whatever is outside the borders is "evil". So there, my 2 cents.


----------



## Valwin (Dec 19, 2011)

amptor said:


> lol @ usa occupying north korea.  that is never going to happen, Kokotaku.
> 
> also don't get your hopes up guys, this guy provided his sons with everything they have including their upbringing.  all it is doing is bringing in another man to power to make nukes and do whatever crazy things his dad was doing.
> 
> ...




what would stop south korea from crosing the border ? the could use this moment to their avantage on the war


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 19, 2011)

Valwin said:


> amptor said:
> 
> 
> > lol @ usa occupying north korea.  that is never going to happen, Kokotaku.
> ...



No idea, perhaps a lack of leadership and general chaos in the chain of command? Nah, prepostrous, wild theory.


----------



## The Milkman (Dec 19, 2011)

Foxi4 said:


> amptor said:
> 
> 
> > lol @ usa occupying north korea.  that is never going to happen, Kokotaku.
> ...



Wait... didnt kim run NORTH korea?

Anyway, I hope US doesnt go all leroy jenkins and try and take over NK or anything like that. hopefully, his son ,whos apparently lined up to be next ruler, is more willing to be reasonable when it comes to relations with other countrys. (not likely since ol' Kim was crazier then his father)


----------



## Valwin (Dec 19, 2011)

Foxi4 said:


> Valwin said:
> 
> 
> > amptor said:
> ...



those are good things


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 19, 2011)

Valwin said:


> Foxi4 said:
> 
> 
> > Valwin said:
> ...


Your logic is interesting, please, enlighten me as to how exactly the reasons for colapse of most great empires are "good" for them?


----------



## Valwin (Dec 19, 2011)

Foxi4 said:


> Valwin said:
> 
> 
> > Foxi4 said:
> ...




empires in chaos you use that to strike them hard and fast is simple warfare my friend  in the 18 century  wen france was in chaos the other european powers decided to declare war and try to get pieces of revolutionary france


----------



## YayMii (Dec 19, 2011)

FYI, the cause of death was a heart attack. He was a heavy smoker, so it's no surprise.


----------



## chris888222 (Dec 19, 2011)

He was one cool mudafucka


----------



## person66 (Dec 19, 2011)

Foxi4 said:


> amptor said:
> 
> 
> > lol @ usa occupying north korea.  that is never going to happen, Kokotaku.
> ...


You do realize he ruled North Korea, not South Korea, right?


----------



## YayMii (Dec 19, 2011)

person66 said:


> You do realize he ruled North Korea, not South Korea, right?


Pretty sure he knows that, it's likely just a small mistake on his part.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 19, 2011)

Valwin said:


> Foxi4 said:
> 
> 
> > Valwin said:
> ...


I was convinced that you wanted to say it is an opportunity for South Korea to conquer the neighbouring nations, not the other way around. It seems I misunderstood you. In that case I agree, it would be the perfect moment to strike, but knowing the history of Asian nations it's likely that a new leader will be appointed before western nations amass a strike force.


----------



## luckwii (Dec 19, 2011)

What the heck is wrong with you people? Sad to see a him go? He was a mass murderer. His people are not happy. They have been dying of starvation and disease aside from him killing them. The US the bad guys? North Korea good? WTF? Good god you guys have your heads so far up your ass that it is sitting back on top of your shoulders again... I can't believe some of the praise of murder genocide, and evil dictators that goes on here. If you guys want to have bleeding hearts feel for all the dead that he is responsible for. And quit bashing the United States.

http://www.northkoreanow.org/the-crisis/mass-starvations-in-north-korea/

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP10.HTM


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 19, 2011)

Explain to me in detail how a switch from dictatorship to democracy via means of invasion and excessive force with all the civilian casualties and destruction of infrastructure in an already backwards country is a good thing. The U.S has no right to invade countries just because they feel like it, it's the kind of thinking that started the 3rd reich. The U.S is not the navel of the world and you have to entertain and accept the fact that not all nations are like yours and you have no right to lecture them about their faults by means of missile strikes. The military conduct of the U.S should be considered a war crime, mister.


----------



## amptor (Dec 19, 2011)

Foxi4 said:


> amptor said:
> 
> 
> > lol @ usa occupying north korea.  that is never going to happen, Kokotaku.
> ...



south korea is our ally and they more or less are very similar to the usa / japan from what I can see.


----------



## amptor (Dec 19, 2011)

anyway guys, the South koreans aren't going to invade the north. that would be stupid, they'd get mass slaughtered trying to do so.  and the usa isn't going to go over there and magically take over the north.

all you are going to see is a transition of power and a new ruler instated and business as usual. this isn't going to change anything unless the new leader of north korea is charismatic.


----------



## YayMii (Dec 19, 2011)

luckwii said:


> What the heck is wrong with you people? Sad to see a him go? He was a mass murderer. His people are not happy. They have been dying of starvation and disease aside from him killing them. The US the bad guys? North Korea good? WTF? Good god you guys have your heads so far up your ass that it is sitting back on top of your shoulders again... I can't believe some of the praise of murder genocide, and evil dictators that goes on here. If you guys want to have bleeding hearts feel for all the dead that he is responsible for. And quit bashing the United States.


 Who's bashing the US? And who said that they were sad to see him go? They pretty much said that US was being defensive and NOT abusing their power to invade other nations. And anybody you somehow portrayed as sad were either joking, or sarcastic, and I don't really know how you could've misinterpreted that.

Nobody said that the US were the bad guys, and nobody praised North Korea for its actions. Besides, even with Jong-il dead, his son Jong-un is likely going to follow in his footsteps so it probably won't even matter.


----------



## Helpful Corn (Dec 19, 2011)

China rules NK, we would start WW3 if we were to try anything there, it would be a very short war with no victors.


----------



## amptor (Dec 19, 2011)

it's always a strange subject too,the tensions between china and the US when everyone knows they get a lot of $$ from here.  and we still send spy planes over them.  very strange.  look how much stuff is in my room from china, yet the $ gets exchanged from the good ol greenback.  strange world this is.

I was just on a US battle ship today and thinking that what is all this crap for, who came up with all these huge war machines. it seems quite a bit overboard if you ask me but I guess it helps save a lot of people's lives..by killing during protecting people... weird world we have.


----------



## Fluto (Dec 19, 2011)

Just saw it on the news


----------



## Depravo (Dec 19, 2011)

Anyone made an obvious Il/ill joke yet?


----------



## Forstride (Dec 19, 2011)

Depravo said:


> Anyone made an obvious Il/ill joke yet?


Only everyone and their mothers.


----------



## beenii (Dec 19, 2011)

may he always be remembered for his awesome performance in "Team America"


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Dec 19, 2011)

Depravo said:


> Anyone made an obvious Il/ill joke yet?



Check my Facebook.

Also, I will try to be coming soon with the best Photoshop known to man.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 19, 2011)

"Thank you, Kim Jong-Il, for being our favorite real-life comic book villain."​


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 19, 2011)

Celice said:


> I felt bad the years back when the photos first showed up showing his state of health. It doesn't matter what the man did and and how horrible his rule may have been for those stuck with him--seeing someone in that state bothers me. No one should have to experience that.


Bullshit, I'm guessing you would say the same for Hitler?


----------



## Depravo (Dec 19, 2011)

This should save us all a bit of trouble.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/dec/19/kim-jong-il-north-korea?CMP=twt_gu


----------



## BlueStar (Dec 19, 2011)

The cult of personality he had was crazy



> North Korean schools teach children that Jong-il's birth was "supernatural." He was born in a log cabin inside a secret base on the sacred Mt. Paekdu, the story goes, and his arrival was accompanied by the apparition of a new star. The seasons then spontaneously changed from winter to spring, and a double-rainbow appeared, followed by a talking iceberg. (Western accounts say he was born in a guerrilla camp in Russia.)



Although if you've been born in a place where this is all you've been told is this stuff from birth and you're not allowed to access external media reports, I guess that's what you'd believe. And I suppose it's not any more zany than the story of the birth of Jesus, which plently of educated westerners believe.  Talking icebergs, talking snakes, potato, patahto...


----------



## Sefi (Dec 19, 2011)

The best "inside look" of North Korea I've seen can be watched in the show "Vice Guide to Travel" North Korea episode.  It's not on streaming on Netflix anymore, but if you can find it I very highly recommend it.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Dec 19, 2011)

It's the South Korean president's (Lee Myung-bak) birthday today.

_So best birthday gift ever?_


----------



## Rogue_Syst3m (Dec 19, 2011)

hans brix?


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 19, 2011)

It's about time. But can the name "Kim Jong" stop?


----------



## emigre (Dec 19, 2011)

soulx said:


> It's the South Korean president's (Lee Myung-bak) birthday today.
> 
> _So best birthday gift ever?_



Not really, they've gone from an unpredictable sod to a situation of the unknown. Pwoer vaccum innit.



diando said:


> It's about time. But can the name "Kim Jong" stop?



Nope, if my know my korean names the Kim is their family name.


----------



## Hop2089 (Dec 19, 2011)

YayMii said:


> FYI, the cause of death was a heart attack. He was a heavy smoker, so it's no surprise.



East Asia in general still has a smoking problem, China's got worse, Japan is still up there but has got slightly better, Korea is the same as 15 years ago.


----------



## Densetsu (Dec 19, 2011)

ChaosZero816 said:


> Didn't see this coming. I wonder if his son would continue his work or would bring a change to North Korea.
> I also wonder how this will impact the rest of the world.


Don't worry, I'm sure his 27-year-old son totally has everything under control.


----------



## SifJar (Dec 19, 2011)

Looks like his Korea is over.

On a more serious note, I hope that in at least some way his son rules better than he did. I don't know a lot about the whole situation (nor do I hugely care - politics bore me), but I know the people of North Korea had poor living conditions under his rule. Anything that improves that is welcome in my opinion. (Regardless, I am not glad he has died - I will not rejoice in the death of a human, no matter how corrupt and evil).


----------



## Celice (Dec 19, 2011)

brandonspikes said:


> Celice said:
> 
> 
> > I felt bad the years back when the photos first showed up showing his state of health. It doesn't matter what the man did and and how horrible his rule may have been for those stuck with him--seeing someone in that state bothers me. No one should have to experience that.
> ...


Well, let's think about this: he took his own life, as far as the sources show. That's very different from dying from something out of your control, such as Kim's illness, Qadaffi's beating and pulling, and Mussolini's mistress. Hitler chose to take his own life, in complete responsibility. Life in these others was taken _from them_.

It's not a matter of qualifying his life's worth against everyone who was harmed by that same life. It's the suffering of life itself which I am sorry for, no matter who the person is.


----------



## Valwin (Dec 19, 2011)

SifJar said:


> Looks like his Korea is over.
> 
> On a more serious note, I hope that in at least some way his son rules better than he did. I don't know a lot about the whole situation (nor do I hugely care - politics bore me), but I know the people of North Korea had poor living conditions under his rule. Anything that improves that is welcome in my opinion. (Regardless, I am not glad he has died - I will not rejoice in the death of a human, no matter how corrupt and evil).




it will be the same jsut look at cuba fidel castro brother raul castro is the same monster


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 19, 2011)

Celice said:


> brandonspikes said:
> 
> 
> > Celice said:
> ...


So its okay to ruin the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, but as long as you kill yourself or get killed its OKAY.


----------



## kthnxshwn (Dec 19, 2011)

Hitler didn't just stand up and decide to take his own life. He killed himself so he wouldn't die at the hands of others. Either way, your argument is pretty stupid.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 19, 2011)

Edit.


----------



## kthnxshwn (Dec 19, 2011)

1) I never said I felt bad for a tyrant.
2) I wasn't talking to you.

GBATemp, folks.


----------



## amptor (Dec 19, 2011)

kthnxshwn said:


> Hitler didn't just stand up and decide to take his own life. He killed himself so he wouldn't die at the hands of others. Either way, your argument is pretty stupid.



Hitler killed himself so that the invading Russians would not take him and throw him into a torture chamber and do as they pleased.

Same reason why Hirohito of Japan surrendered to the allies at the end of WWII, he believed that we would allow the Russians to come in and conquer him and make a huge mess out of his people in Japan.

Both of these axis powers knew how ruthless Russia was because Stalin and Hitler were close friends for a time and Stalin even allowed Hitler to conduct his gruesome experiments on some of Russia's people whom became slain.

WWII in Europe was a huge mess with all the massacres, experiments, bombings, etc etc.


----------



## Valwin (Dec 19, 2011)

amptor said:


> kthnxshwn said:
> 
> 
> > Hitler didn't just stand up and decide to take his own life. He killed himself so he wouldn't die at the hands of others. Either way, your argument is pretty stupid.
> ...


----------



## Gahars (Dec 19, 2011)

Now if only we didn't have possible power vacuum on our hands because of this...

I hate to say it, but with the possible crises ahead, we might have been better off with the devil we knew.


----------



## Celice (Dec 19, 2011)

brandonspikes said:


> Celice said:
> 
> 
> > brandonspikes said:
> ...


You're the only one who's said that.

  You are very quick to jump.


----------



## Deleted-236924 (Dec 20, 2011)

Hitler _was_ a great leader; The only problem was his beliefs.



Valwin said:


> what would stop south korea from crosing the border ? the could use this moment to their avantage on the war


Probably the tons of North Korean soldiers watching over the border, making sure no one crosses.
(FYI, people get shot if they are caught crossing.)

The only way people can leave North Korea is by crossing the north border, then going south all the way through China, then crossing part of Laos to reach Vietnam, which is the only nearby country to allow North Korean fugitives to fly to South Korea.
Not mentioning that if they get caught in China/Laos, they are sent back to North Korea and killed there.


----------



## Gahars (Dec 20, 2011)

Pingouin7 said:


> Valwin said:
> 
> 
> > what would stop south korea from crosing the border ? the could use this moment to their avantage on the war
> ...



Not to mention the fact that North Korea A) has the 4th largest army in the world ready to move against South Korea at a moment's notice and B) has enough of artillery and missiles pointed directly at Seoul that, to quote TVTropes, could "wipe out the city in 30 seconds." Plus, we're allied with China and North Korea is allied with China; if both superpowers got dragged into a shooting war, it wouldn't end well for anybody.

But let's just say that it was a war between North and South Korea only. While the South would likely win (Serious advantages with technology and supplies), it would be a very, very, very costly affair. With the near impossibility of integrating the North back into the South, nobody would win.

Despite all of the saber rattling, both sides have been hoping that the other wouldn't seriously go through with it. Hopefully this transition doesn't change that.


----------



## Uncle FEFL (Dec 20, 2011)

Wow, Celice is misunderstood on multiple forums, haha.

I agree with Celice, somewhat. I feel sorry that these leaders went through what they did, but they deserved their deaths, in my opinion. Decades of Kim Jong-Il starving his own people and telling them that he's a god doesn't make me feel sympathetic towards his death. I have issues with the way Gaddafi was killed, but I don't have issues with him being dead. Same with Jong-Il. And Stalin, and other leaders similar to them.


----------



## Celice (Dec 20, 2011)

It is a mighty curse of textual (mis)understanding


----------



## Defiance (Dec 20, 2011)

Personally, if someone tortures  hundreds of thousands of people by making them starve and such, I don't mind at all if that person suffers.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 20, 2011)

YayMii said:


> person66 said:
> 
> 
> > You do realize he ruled North Korea, not South Korea, right?
> ...


Gah! Guilty as charged! I indeed mixed the names, I tend to do that all the time. As far as Hitler is concerned, it's not 100% certain that he killed himself, in fact, it's not certain whether or not he died during the siege of Berlin.

There are some credible sources stating that a few weeks before the siege he knew the kreig is lost and chose to escape north, using a U-Boot, then lived his life as a farmer in Argentina and died of natural causes much, much later. Good stuff.


----------



## luckwii (Dec 20, 2011)

Foxi4 said:


> Explain to me in detail how a switch from dictatorship to democracy via means of invasion and excessive force with all the civilian casualties and destruction of infrastructure in an already backwards country is a good thing. The U.S has no right to invade countries just because they feel like it, it's the kind of thinking that started the 3rd reich. The U.S is not the navel of the world and you have to entertain and accept the fact that not all nations are like yours and you have no right to lecture them about their faults by means of missile strikes. The military conduct of the U.S should be considered a war crime, mister.



Funny coming from someone from Poland....Very funny. If not for my family and countries sacrifice, you would have never been born or had been part of the 3rd Reich. Ugh I'm done with this. There is no arguing with people in this state of delusion.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 20, 2011)

luckwii said:


> Foxi4 said:
> 
> 
> > Explain to me in detail how a switch from dictatorship to democracy via means of invasion and excessive force with all the civilian casualties and destruction of infrastructure in an already backwards country is a good thing. The U.S has no right to invade countries just because they feel like it, it's the kind of thinking that started the 3rd reich. The U.S is not the navel of the world and you have to entertain and accept the fact that not all nations are like yours and you have no right to lecture them about their faults by means of missile strikes. The military conduct of the U.S should be considered a war crime, mister.
> ...



HA! HA HA HA! Excuse me, as far as I remember, Poland was liberated by the Soviet Union. Americans hopped in at the point when Germans were already retreating westward, get yourself a history book. In fact, an American soldier never stepped on Polish soil until the very late 20th century, when "thanks to our own innitiative" we got out of the failboat that was U.S.S.R. Oh, by the way, I remind you about the Yalta Conference, where your buddy Roosevelt and his pal Churchill sold our country to Stalin for the shabby premise of peace that ended up causing the Cold War. Your sacrifices deserve no praise of mine, if anything, I should "thank you" for the slaughter of hundreds of Polish families. Y'know - Russians didn't like us. Like, at all. Ever heard of the Katyn massacre, among many others? Don't lecture me about my own history. Your country, among other western powers, did nothing to help my forefathers, neither in the beginning of the war when we outwardly asked for help, nor at the end when you figured that appeasing U.S.S.R is far more important then the petty "Poland".

EDIT: Added links as to clarify the historical background.

EDIT2: Excuse my outburst. It's not that I hold a grudge againts western nations - I can understand that nobody wanted to piss off the U.S.S.R at the peak of its military and political potential. Trying anything "funny" with Stalin could provoke further skirmishes, however the fate of Poland could've been at least slightly better then the "communism" sentence. Never the less, I was angry not because I disagreed with Luck's opinion, but because he pictured a false reality of the war - a glorification of the States that had nothing to do with what actually happened back then in the case of Poland, and seeing that it's my homeland, I felt that I had to thoroughly clarify the situation.


----------



## BlueStar (Dec 20, 2011)

luckwii said:


> Funny coming from someone from Poland....Very funny. If not for my family and countries sacrifice, you would have never been born or had been part of the 3rd Reich. Ugh I'm done with this. There is no arguing with people in this state of delusion.



On top of the obvious pointed out in the post above, you realise that the person who started pre-emptively invading countries to spark off WWII was the bad guy, yeah?


----------



## luckwii (Dec 20, 2011)

There were two fronts in WWII,the Eastern and the Western. Without both Germany would not have been toppled. Don't forget Japanese involvement. To look at one slice of the war is the same tunnel vision....

And to the last poster, don't forget your country was one of the votes in the 17 unanimous to go back into Iraq based on the Gulf War Armistice.

I aint going back and forth here anymore..but I do say, you all need to rethink good and bad. It is very dangerous not knowing the difference between the two. Freedom and equality will disappear soon after the ability to know right and wrong goes.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 20, 2011)

luckwii said:


> There were two fronts in WWII,the Eastern and the Western. Without both Germany would not have been toppled. Don't forget Japanese involvement. To look at one slice of the war is the same tunnel vision....
> 
> And to the last poster, don't forget your country was one of the votes in the 17 unanimous to go back into Iraq based on the Gulf War Armistice.
> 
> I aint going back and forth here anymore..but I do say, you all need to rethink good and bad. It is very dangerous not knowing the difference between the two. Freedom and equality will disappear soon after the ability to know right and wrong goes.



Your point was that for some bizzare reason I should be thankful for the U.S intervention during WWII, to which I responded "regardless of their intervention, Central and Eastern Europe was in U.S.S.R's pocket anyways the moment the 3rd Reich decided to double-cross U.S.S.R" and provided you with evidence that neither the U.S nor any other Western nation did anything to protect the interests of slavic nations. In fact, I dare to say that the Nazis would have to retreat regardless of whether or not the U.S intervened.

Their strategy of Blitzkreig simply did not work in Russia - their lubrication failed when confronted with the harsh Russian winter, slowing down their progress consciderably. They did not have provisions for warfare in extended periods of time, confronted with the mass of Soviet infantry and stripped of their machinery retreat was a matter of time. Thing is, when you retreat from U.S.S.R, the hammer and the sickle follow you with a clear intention of obliterating their enemy just to make a point. Stalin wanted domination in Eastern Europe, he wanted to have complete access to the Baltic Sea and he recieved both.

What's in it for me that the U.S was helping out on the Western front? Nothing - I don't live in the west. And why bring up Japan, who bailed out of the Axis the moment the atom bombs were dropped? They barely had any influence at all in the regions we were talking about.

I am not undermining the fact that the U.S helped out in the WWII, that would be ridiculous. What I am saying is that my country and many others did not benefit from it in the slightest, countries like Poland have a right to feel betrayed.

I'm glad that you see the importance of seeing a difference between good and evil, that you value freedom and equality and whatnot, but that was not the point, and even if it was, it is you who can't see the real intentions behind invading the Middle East time and time again. I assure you, it's not to get rid of dictatorships.

I'd like to remind you that your country of freedom had dealings with Saddam Hussain, Osama Bin Laden, General Gadaffi and many others. When they were fighting againts a common enemy, they were "friends", when they wanted to start their own kind of order, all of a sudden they became enemies.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Dec 20, 2011)

Totally related:







I promised a Photoshop.

But yeah, I would say "RIP" but I really don't give a shit. Burn in hell ya sick bastard.


----------



## BlueStar (Dec 20, 2011)

luckwii said:


> And to the last poster, don't forget your country was one of the votes in the 17 unanimous to go back into Iraq based on the Gulf War Armistice.



And like the majority of the British public at the time, I disagreed with that decision.



> To look at one slice of the war is the same tunnel vision....



You mean like the little slice the US was involved in?


----------



## Celice (Dec 20, 2011)

> but I do say, you all need to rethink good and bad. It is very dangerous not knowing the difference between the two. Freedom and equality will disappear soon after the ability to know right and wrong goes.


We should all reexamine ourselves critically whenever possible. This includes you, as you seem to have a staunch, stubborn view of what both should be.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Dec 20, 2011)

It seems that after a life of being the world's funniest dictator, he will be remembered. And to a couple, not at all because of murder.


----------



## Uncle FEFL (Dec 21, 2011)

Guild McCommunist said:


> But yeah, I would say "RIP" but I really don't give a shit. Burn in hell ya sick bastard.





Defiance said:


> Personally, if someone tortures  hundreds of thousands of people by making them starve and such, I don't mind at all if that person suffers.



Remind me again why you two are any different, if not worse, from a cruel dictator (philosophically)? Whether innocent or guilty, a humanitarian or tyrant, torture is a heinous punishment--especially one that is for eternity. To wish for any man to suffer is pretty cruel. If this is not your true opinion, then I suggest you control your emotions. If this is, I suggest you reevaluate what the value of life means to you. No one deserves to suffer, especially at the hands of others, no matter what they did.



> There were two fronts in WWII,the Eastern and the Western. Without both Germany would not have been toppled. Don't forget Japanese involvement. To look at one slice of the war is the same tunnel vision....


This has got to be the most annoying assumption about WWII.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Dec 21, 2011)

Uncle FEFL said:


> Remind me again why you two are any different, if not worse, from a cruel dictator (philosophically)? Whether innocent or guilty, a humanitarian or tyrant, torture is a heinous punishment--especially one that is for eternity. To wish for any man to suffer is pretty cruel. If this is not your true opinion, then I suggest you control your emotions. If this is, I suggest you reevaluate what the value of life means to you. No one deserves to suffer, especially at the hands of others, no matter what they did.



What goes around comes around. I'm not a big fan of "WISHING PAIN ON ANYONE IS BAD" because I do wish pain on people such as this. If you're a religious sort, if someone commits "heinous" crimes such as Kim Jong Il did, why do they get a free pass from people like you since they're just "people" in the end? If I could get a religious free pass then I'd be fucking some shit up right now. If I was a religious person of course.

But I see nothing wrong with wishing the worst on people who deserve the worst. It's not like he was "misunderstood" or "complicated". He was a psychopath and a cruel tyrant.


----------



## Veho (Dec 21, 2011)

Uncle FEFL said:


> Remind me again why you two are any different, if not worse, from a cruel dictator (philosophically)?


_Philosophically_, they are wishing torture and suffering to a horrible tyrant. Kim Jong Ill _actually inflicted_ torture and suffering upon thousands of innocent people, and indirectly made the lives of millions more utter shit. I'd say there's a difference there.


----------



## Elrinth (Dec 21, 2011)

How do you rike dat Hans Brix!


----------



## taken (Dec 21, 2011)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Uncle FEFL said:
> 
> 
> > Remind me again why you two are any different, if not worse, from a cruel dictator (philosophically)? Whether innocent or guilty, a humanitarian or tyrant, torture is a heinous punishment--especially one that is for eternity. To wish for any man to suffer is pretty cruel. If this is not your true opinion, then I suggest you control your emotions. If this is, I suggest you reevaluate what the value of life means to you. No one deserves to suffer, especially at the hands of others, no matter what they did.
> ...


His son is going to be the same, a psychopath and a cruel tyrant.


----------



## Celice (Dec 22, 2011)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Uncle FEFL said:
> 
> 
> > Remind me again why you two are any different, if not worse, from a cruel dictator (philosophically)? Whether innocent or guilty, a humanitarian or tyrant, torture is a heinous punishment--especially one that is for eternity. To wish for any man to suffer is pretty cruel. If this is not your true opinion, then I suggest you control your emotions. If this is, I suggest you reevaluate what the value of life means to you. No one deserves to suffer, especially at the hands of others, no matter what they did.
> ...


The problem is is when people wish the same harm on him (or anyone) that he exacted on other people. One laments the pain inflicted on others and wishes it was prevented--then they somehow accept and embrace that same horror and violence if it is applied to someone else (in this case, the originator). Somehow you go from saying how bad it is what one does, to wishing the very same on someone else.


----------



## ferofax (Dec 22, 2011)

Oh, so that's why i'm so ronery...


----------



## Uncle FEFL (Dec 22, 2011)

Guild McCommunist said:


> What goes around comes around. I'm not a big fan of "WISHING PAIN ON ANYONE IS BAD" because I do wish pain on people such as this. If you're a religious sort, if someone commits "heinous" crimes such as Kim Jong Il did, why do they get a free pass from people like you since they're just "people" in the end? If I could get a religious free pass then I'd be fucking some shit up right now. If I was a religious person of course.
> 
> But I see nothing wrong with wishing the worst on people who deserve the worst. It's not like he was "misunderstood" or "complicated". He was a psychopath and a cruel tyrant.


You don't understand. If you were to watch a video of a tyrant being tortured, how do you think you would react? Would you laugh at his pain? Would you sympathize? Would you like to be the one inflicting the suffering?

And if it were the tyrant torturing a "threatening" scientist?

No one is deserving of their life being taken away, _especially_ through torture or other forms of punishment that inflict prolonged psychological and/or physical suffering. I think prisons should exist, but not as they are now (speaking for US prison system only).

I'm an atheist, if you were trying to imply that I am devoutly religious.


Veho said:


> _Philosophically_, they are wishing torture and suffering to a horrible tyrant. Kim Jong Ill _actually inflicted_ torture and suffering upon thousands of innocent people, and indirectly made the lives of millions more utter shit. I'd say there's a difference there.


I understand the difference in action, which is why I stated that I was only talking about philosophical differences. What truly separates people who wish to inflict pain to those that actually inflict pain? Given the opportunity, wouldn't those who wish to do it, do it? Just as those who actually did inflict suffering upon others?


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 22, 2011)

Are you a Buddhist or anything of the sort?


----------



## Uncle FEFL (Dec 22, 2011)

No. I merely dislike the suffering of life.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 22, 2011)

Interesting.

Well, it's hard to disagree that Mr.Kim here did alot of horrible stuff in his life and I can understand how some people would be delighted in seeing him suffer. Not that it has a point, people simply like the Tooth for Tooth rule since the dawn of time.

I'd much rather have criminals like this work till they die in work camps, but that's me - I'm a horrible person.


----------



## Uncle FEFL (Dec 22, 2011)

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
--Mohandas Gandhi

The system you mention makes the problem perpetual. As history shows, compassion and sympathy for the fellow human species bring about great strides of enlightenment and social progress.


----------



## amptor (Dec 23, 2011)

luckwii said:


> There were two fronts in WWII,the Eastern and the Western. Without both Germany would not have been toppled. Don't forget Japanese involvement. To look at one slice of the war is the same tunnel vision....
> 
> And to the last poster, don't forget your country was one of the votes in the 17 unanimous to go back into Iraq based on the Gulf War Armistice.
> 
> I aint going back and forth here anymore..but I do say, you all need to rethink good and bad. It is very dangerous not knowing the difference between the two. Freedom and equality will disappear soon after the ability to know right and wrong goes.



Stalin studied the fall of the Napoleon empire and thus was how he was able to defeat Germany.

Russia > * (power wise) and I'm not even Russian saying this.  Russia, during WWII, possibly could have taken over the entire planet if they wanted to but Stalin knew better than that and just took what he got after the treaties were signed.


----------



## Veho (Dec 23, 2011)

Uncle FEFL said:


> Veho said:
> 
> 
> > _Philosophically_, they are wishing torture and suffering to a horrible tyrant. Kim Jong Ill _actually inflicted_ torture and suffering upon thousands of innocent people, and indirectly made the lives of millions more utter shit. I'd say there's a difference there.
> ...


 Ah, but that's where the important distinction of who's receiving the torture comes into play. Let's rephrase that with just the intent in mind: 

They are wishing torture and suffering to a vicious tyrant. Kim Jong Ill inflicted torture and suffering upon thousands of innocent people (and indirectly made the lives of millions more utter shit).


----------



## Fat D (Dec 23, 2011)

Still, our modern understanding of ethics prohibits torture irrespective of that person's actions. He might have been a vicious tyrant and by no means innocent, but he was still a human.


----------



## Uncle FEFL (Dec 24, 2011)

Veho said:


> Ah, but that's where the important distinction of who's receiving the torture comes into play. Let's rephrase that with just the intent in mind:
> 
> They are wishing torture and suffering to a vicious tyrant. Kim Jong Ill inflicted torture and suffering upon thousands of innocent people (and indirectly made the lives of millions more utter shit).


There's some things I would like to ask you:

* What will torturing the tyrant solve? Will it bring back the lives of those he killed? Will it fill the stomachs of the the people he is starving? Will it end the conflicts that he has began? Will it allow social progress to take place once more? Will it restore the destroyed cities? Will it make him beg for forgiveness? And what does that solve, in effect?

* Is there really no other solution to defeat a tyrant than to make him suffer? Is that even a solution?

The fact is, making the tyrant suffer solves nothing--it only allows the observer to stimulate his/her sadistic feelings, and if they truly enjoy watching the tyrant suffer, then philosophically, they aren't very different from the tyrant. They both want their enemies to suffer hopelessly. The tyrant just had the power, and therefore the opportunity, to do so on a large scale.


----------



## Giga_Gaia (Dec 24, 2011)

Fat D said:


> Still, our modern understanding of ethics prohibits torture irrespective of that person's actions. He might have been a vicious tyrant and by no means innocent, but he was still a human.



No, a person like that can only be considered a monster and therefore has no rights.

Oh by the way, they should kill his son after making him watch everyone he loves scream and die.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 24, 2011)

Giga_Gaia said:


> Fat D said:
> 
> 
> > Still, our modern understanding of ethics prohibits torture irrespective of that person's actions. He might have been a vicious tyrant and by no means innocent, but he was still a human.
> ...


...and his son is guilty of what and how?


----------



## AceWarhead (Dec 24, 2011)

Foxi4 said:


> Giga_Gaia said:
> 
> 
> > Fat D said:
> ...


Exactly, his son has done nothing wrong (yet).


----------



## Veho (Dec 24, 2011)

Uncle FEFL said:


> What will torturing the tyrant solve?


It will solve the problem of him being alive and getting away with what he did scot free. 



Uncle FEFL said:


> They both want their enemies to suffer hopelessly.


"Enemies"? You're equating a tyrant with his victims. Removing the humanity (or lack thereof) from both and clumping both under an overgeneralized label. You see no difference between those who would torture a tyrant and those that would torture innocent people (going that far to call the people "enemies" and justifying the tyrant's motivation in the process). You see no difference between the tyrant and his victims. 



Uncle FEFL said:


> they aren't very different from the tyrant [...] The tyrant just had the power, and therefore the opportunity, to do so on a large scale.


So you're saying that given the opportunity, these tempers would go on a murder/torture spree for shits and giggles?


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 24, 2011)

Veho said:


> Uncle FEFL said:
> 
> 
> > What will torturing the tyrant solve?
> ...



I'll add a few things... It doesn't necessarily have to solve anything - it simply quenches people's natural thirst for revenge. That is really the only purpose, and the process needs no higher one, nor does it need any explaination.

There is a huge difference between the tyrant and the victim and a generalisations like "we are all human" are simply not sufficient. I could say that lions and maincoons are both cats and I would be right. I can stroke a maincoon no problem, however I wouldn't risk it with a lion because common sense dictates that anything with a mouth that large can potentially, or even is likely to cause me harm. Same with people - there are evil ones and good ones. It's not entirely their fault - the circumstances in which they were brought up play a huge role in who they eventually become, but we cannot forget about the ever so present factor of free will that is fundamental here.

Given the opportunity, many people would turn foul and sour - that much is correct. HOWEVER! Only a small percentage would become homocidal maniacs, and there is actually quite a big chance that some might actually be better leaders then Kim ever was. Well, minus the P.R.


----------



## Uncle FEFL (Dec 25, 2011)

Veho said:


> It will solve the problem of him being alive and getting away with what he did scot free.


So will a normal death and prison time. No need for anyone to suffer miserably. It's doesn't solve anything.



> "Enemies"? You're equating a tyrant with his victims. Removing the humanity (or lack thereof) from both and clumping both under an overgeneralized label. You see no difference between those who would torture a tyrant and those that would torture innocent people (going that far to call the people "enemies" and justifying the tyrant's motivation in the process). You see no difference between the tyrant and his victims.



It takes a special kind of person to be able to torture someone. I bet neither of us could do it. A lot of people here said they wish that he was tortured before being murdered, but I'm certain none of them would do it themselves. This is why, in my first post in this topic, I said that those who hold this opinion but don't mean it should check their emotions. No one _deserves_ torture or death. No one has the authority to dictate that.

But anyway, the reason why most won't torture another human is because humans don't like seeing each other suffer. We help when aid is truly needed and completely necessary. People like me merely ask that we don't drive ourselves to the point where help is absolutely needed, rather we should have been compassionate and understanding (et cetera) from the start to avoid bloodshed. Just imagine the Earth in an alternate universe that understood the Incas were people, not tools to be used; that blacks weren't slaves given to us by god, but people from a different continent and had a very different culture, but ultimately they are still people. 

When I equate a tyrant with people that want to make a tyrant suffer, I am being facetious, but in reality there are similarities between them than you're not acknowledging. 

Forgiveness is a powerful thing. It allows one to accept the past, and to move onto a better, progressive future to become a wiser nation. I don't care about the mumbo-jumbo with religion, but the ideas behind forgiveness are fairly important. Grudges and the thirst for vengeance don't solve a damn thing. Like I said, this system merely makes the problem perpetual. Acceptance, education, and empathy are what erases problems. It allows us to diminish the chances of a tyrant coming into power. If we were wiser in the 1930's, Hitler would not have been named Chancellor. If we were more compassionate towards Ho Chi Minh in the 1950's - 1960's, it is very possible that the Vietnamese conflicts would have never existed. If we were a more empathetic people in the US, gays would have the right to marriage.



> So you're saying that given the opportunity, these tempers would go on a murder/torture spree for shits and giggles?


I wouldn't put it passed them...   

I believe I answered this above, now haha.



Foxi4 said:


> I'll add a few things... It doesn't necessarily have to solve anything - it simply quenches people's natural thirst for revenge. That is really the only purpose, and the process needs no higher one, nor does it need any explaination.


Revenge is useless.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 25, 2011)

People live in a bubble of "logic", you think you're "smart" if everything you believe in has a "use" but you're actually building walls around yourself, a metaphorical box outside of which you can't think. The human psyche is anything but logical, it's more like quantum physics - it goes beyond what is conscidered logic. Humans are torn by emotions, not just cold fact. Some desires don't need to have a "use" to be beneficial - having a tyrant suffer relieves the pain of millions. It's not morally right, but in a democracy, it's the majority that wins the vote, and if the majority wants their opressor to suffer then so be it. Fortunatelly for himself, Kim was faster then the lot and went away in a relatively peaceful fashion.


----------



## Veho (Dec 25, 2011)

Uncle FEFL said:


> So will a normal death and prison time.


Living the rest of his days in luxury is not much of a consequence for one's actions.  



> No one _deserves_ death.


We'll just have to disagree on that one. 



> When I equate a tyrant with people that want to make a tyrant suffer, I am being facetious, but in reality there are similarities between them than you're not acknowledging.


And you're purposely omitting the differences. And on the other hand, like I pointed out and you refused to address, you're completely ignoring the difference between the tyrant and the people he had tortured, imprisoned and killed. Sure, everything is similar to everything else once you wilfully ignore all distinctions, no matter their importance. 



> Forgiveness is a powerful thing. It allows one to accept the past, and to move onto a better, progressive future to become a wiser nation.


So does catharsis. Forgiveness can be given posthumously.


----------



## kthnxshwn (Dec 25, 2011)

You guys have gone on for pages solely because you differ in opinions. No one is clearly right nor is anyone wrong - you simply have different opinions.


----------



## Uncle FEFL (Dec 26, 2011)

Foxi4 said:


> People live in a bubble of "logic", you think you're "smart" if everything you believe in has a "use" but you're actually building walls around yourself, a metaphorical box outside of which you can't think. The human psyche is anything but logical, it's more like quantum physics - it goes beyond what is conscidered logic. Humans are torn by emotions, not just cold fact. Some desires don't need to have a "use" to be beneficial - having a tyrant suffer relieves the pain of millions. It's not morally right, but in a democracy, it's the majority that wins the vote, and if the majority wants their opressor to suffer then so be it. Fortunatelly for himself, Kim was faster then the lot and went away in a relatively peaceful fashion.


You are misinterpreting my posts. I'm begging people to have emotions beyond vengeance and blind anger, two very useless--possibly self-damaging emotions. 

What was your reaction to Gadaffi's photos/video when he was beaten to a bloody pulp? 



Veho said:


> Living the rest of his days in luxury is not much of a consequence for one's actions.


I was not aware that prison is actually similar to vacation in Hawaii.   



> We'll just have to disagree on that one.


Why? What makes you or anyone else the authority over another life?



> And you're purposely omitting the differences. And on the other hand, like I pointed out and you refused to address, you're completely ignoring the difference between the tyrant and the people he had tortured, imprisoned and killed. Sure, everything is similar to everything else once you wilfully ignore all distinctions, no matter their importance.


I admitted I was when I said I was being facetious, and I also said I realize the differences.

There's huge, obvious differences that I don't need to address. And in reality, the people that I am drawing similarities to Jong-Il in particular are very few relative to everyone else (ones that ACT on their desire for power). My basic point is that no one is really different from Jong-Il, or Gadaffi, or Bin Laden, or Thatcher, or Bush (in terms of _philosophy_). When given power, people tend to desire more and act far more superior than they really are. A little bit of power fools them. Officers in the United States are notorious for this very way of thinking. 



> So does catharsis. Forgiveness can be given posthumously.


Can catharsis be an effective medium to help people start restoring society? 

The example pertaining to the Western World, in particular the United States (terrorism!), says no. In fact, it's been a major factor in completely destroying our society in the US.


----------



## Veho (Dec 26, 2011)

Uncle FEFL said:


> I was not aware that prison is actually similar to vacation in Hawaii.


Regular prison? Compared to the living conditions of the majority of North Koreans? Yes. Yes it is. And prisoners of his calibre aren't even kept in regular prisons. If they are ever placed in an actual prison, their accomodations are more alike to hotel suites, but most of the time they're kept in house arrest. 



> Why? What makes you or anyone else the authority over another life?


That's a question you should ask the murderer. On my part, I choose to believe the killer lives by the Golden Rule and am only too happy to oblige him. He might claim otherwise but he's pretty much waived his right to any say in the matter the moment he doused a few people in gasoline and set them on fire for the lulz. For example. 



> Can catharsis be an effective medium to help people start restoring society?


Yes. 



> The example pertaining to the Western World, in particular the United States (terrorism!), says no. In fact, it's been a major factor in completely destroying our society in the US.


I wasn't aware of the US undergoing any cathartic events recently.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 26, 2011)

You're not going to win him over Veho, you can just as well forfeit already.

FEFL believes that everyone can just hold hands and live peacefuly, but unfortunatelly or fortunatelly this is outside of human nature, in fact, it's againts it. Since the dawn of time we were war monging creatures and we always will be - that's how we were designed. We like to inflict harm upon eachother when given enough reason to do so and that's it. And before you answer, FEFL, I have thousands of years of history to back up my argument, so let it go.


----------



## Uncle FEFL (Dec 27, 2011)

Foxi4 said:


> You're not going to win him over Veho, you can just as well forfeit already.


Eh.



> FEFL believes that everyone can just hold hands and live peacefuly, but unfortunatelly or fortunatelly this is outside of human nature, in fact, it's againts it. Since the dawn of time we were war monging creatures and we always will be - that's how we were designed. We like to inflict harm upon eachother when given enough reason to do so and that's it. And before you answer, FEFL, I have thousands of years of history to back up my argument, so let it go.


You aren't the only one with evidence to back up your argument.

Feel free to use the examples of conflicts and other events that aren't as well known as others, but still entirely notable.

And again, I feel you are misinterpreting my points if you feel that I think we can achieve Utopia by acting kindly towards others.

Billions of years of evolution, and we still think that human behavior is directed by instinct alone. Intelligence is key, and has been for thousands of years of human civilizations. Grocery stores aren't a product of instinctive behavior--they're a product of reason and scientific advances, both outside of our instincts. Rockets are not a product of instincts, they are a product of science--using objective facts, mathematics, and senses (senses that are totally beyond our capabilities). 

I think it's silly to think that we can advance technologically without instincts, but not socially and politically. Democracy itself is a product of intelligence, not instinct. War is a product of instinct that has yet to be overcome. Much of social _advancement_ has been via intelligence, rational thinking, and compassion for one another.   



Veho said:


> That's a question you should ask the murderer. On my part, I choose to believe the killer lives by the Golden Rule and am only too happy to oblige him. He might claim otherwise but he's pretty much waived his right to any say in the matter the moment he doused a few people in gasoline and set them on fire for the lulz. For example.


And if you murder him, in vengeance? Does that not waive your rights? And the person that murders you?

The man, cruel as he is, should not lose his right to life or psychological health (if healthy, that is).  



> Yes.


When?



> I wasn't aware of the US undergoing any cathartic events recently.


What did Bin Laden's, Gadaffi's, and Jong-Il's death solve, exactly?


----



> The problem is is when people wish the same harm on him (or anyone) that he exacted on other people. One laments the pain inflicted on others and wishes it was prevented--then they somehow accept and embrace that same horror and violence if it is applied to someone else (in this case, the originator). Somehow you go from saying how bad it is what one does, to wishing the very same on someone else.


Celice outlined how hypocritical these thoughts are.


----------



## Veho (Dec 27, 2011)

Uncle FEFL said:


> And if you murder him, in vengeance?


Don't ascribe me your own motives.  



> Does that not waive your rights?


Nope. 



> The man, cruel as he is, should not lose his right to life or psychological health.


Why not? So you could feel better about yourself? 



> When?


When it actually happens. 



> What did Bin Laden's, Gadaffi's, and Jong-Il's death solve, exactly?


What does Gadaffi's or Il' deaths have with the US? And the death of Bin Laden came ten years too late and was separated from his crime by an entirely unrelated, overlong, pointless war whose PR campaign did its best to obfuscate everything in an attempt to hide political agendas (and the fact it had nothing to do with 9/11). There was no clean line between the criminal, his actions, and their consequences. His death (that half of America doesn't even believe really happened) was too little, too late. Instead of being captured, paraded in stocks for all the world to see, and then tried, he was swept under the rug. 



> Celice outlined how hypocritical these thoughts are.


And I pointed out how hypocritical it is to equate the torturer and killer to innocent victims yet you insist on evading or ignoring that bit.


----------



## Uncle FEFL (Dec 27, 2011)

Veho said:


> Don't ascribe me your own motives.


:/  



> Nope.


Why not?



> Why not? So you could feel better about yourself?


This response doesn't make sense because it's irrelevant. 

As for the "why not," it is because no one has the authority to control that person's life (live or die) or psychological well-being. If he is a murderer, he serves time in prison. 



> When it actually happens.


Evidence would be better.



> What does Gadaffi's or Il' deaths have with the US? And the death of Bin Laden came ten years too late and was separated from his crime by an entirely unrelated, overlong, pointless war whose PR campaign did its best to obfuscate everything in an attempt to hide political agendas (and the fact it had nothing to do with 9/11). There was no clean line between the criminal, his actions, and their consequences. His death (that half of America doesn't even believe really happened) was too little, too late. Instead of being captured, paraded in stocks for all the world to see, and then tried, he was swept under the rug.


Tyrants that most Americans knew of and wanted gone. When both of them died, it served no real purpose to us.

I don't want to get into the specifics of Bin Laden--but men, women, and children chanted 'USA' after the news at the White House. Truly for some of us, it was a cathartic moment. 

Except it didn't solve anything.



> And I pointed out how hypocritical it is to equate the torturer and killer to innocent victims yet you insist on evading or ignoring that bit.


You haven't really addressed it as being hypocritical, you merely said, "You are omitting the differences between them," to which I replied:

"I admitted I was when I said I was being facetious, and I also said I realize the differences.

There's huge, obvious differences that I don't need to address. And in reality, the people that I am drawing similarities to Jong-Il in particular are very few relative to everyone else (ones that ACT on their desire for power). My basic point is that no one is really different from Jong-Il, or Gadaffi, or Bin Laden, or Thatcher, or Bush (in terms of philosophy). When given power, people tend to desire more and act far more superior than they really are. A little bit of power fools them. Officers in the United States are notorious for this very way of thinking."

Which you promptly ignored in your next response.


----------



## Veho (Dec 27, 2011)

Uncle FEFL said:


> Why not?


Because I never tortured, raped and murdered an innocent human being. Or two. Or seven. Slowly. 



> This response doesn't make sense because it's irrelevant.


I'll take that as a "yes." 



> no one has the authority to control that person's life (live or die).


Why not?  



> If he is a murderer, he serves time in prison.


Depends on the severity of the murder, mitigating and extenuating circumstances, but if the crime is heinous enough, he is executed. Or should be, anyway.  



> Evidence would be better.


The same goes for your happy claims of "not holding people responsible for their actions will bring us utopia." 



> Tyrants that most Americans knew of and wanted gone.


Most? Citation needed. Nobody knew, or cared about them enough to want them either gone or where they were.  



> When both of them died, it served no real purpose to us.


Because they had nothing to do with the US. 



> Except it didn't solve anything.


Too little, too late. 



> You haven't really addressed it as being hypocritical, you merely said, "You are omitting the differences between them,"


Oh, so you didn't get what I was saying. I'll rephrase it. 

Kim Jong Il had countless people tortured and killed. We will call those people "victims." In the interest of clarity, we will call him "sadistic murderous monster." And what I said is that you make no distinction between the victims and the sadistic murderous monster. To which you replied "no one is really different from Jong-Il, or Gadaffi, or Bin Laden." Nice.


----------



## exangel (Dec 27, 2011)

Veho said:


> > You haven't really addressed it as being hypocritical, you merely said, "You are omitting the differences between them,"
> 
> 
> Oh, so you didn't get what I was saying. I'll rephrase it.
> ...


I had stopped paying attention to this thread but after revisiting... this argument reminds me of something that came up in a debate I was a party to about 15 years ago in IRC.
 All men are created equal.
 How does this account for those born into poverty or war, being abused by those given great power by lineage or position?
 All men are created equally _human_.
 I'll grant that.

What a human being _does _with that power can be criminal or virtuous as a matter of choice, and the idea that the cruel and powerful should be afforded equal human rights when they have massively violated the basic rights of so many other human beings directly (through the abuse of their power) is just bullshit.


----------



## Cartmanuk (Dec 27, 2011)

exangel said:


> What a human being _does _with that power can be criminal or virtuous as a matter of choice, and the idea that the cruel and powerful should be afforded equal human rights when they have massively violated the basic rights of so many other human beings directly (through the abuse of their power) is just bullshit.



Nicely put..


----------



## Uncle FEFL (Dec 27, 2011)

Veho said:


> Because I never tortured, raped and murdered an innocent human being. Or two. Or seven. Slowly.


Indeed.

Since you refuse to allow a hypothetical to involve you, let's say someone close to me is murdered, and I murder the assassin out of revenge. Have I given up my right to life? 



> I'll take that as a "yes."


I don't take a certain stance because it makes me feel good. 

The response you made was irrelevant, so I did not answer it. There's no need to. My feelings have no bearings on what I think is correct. Evidence and reason do. The reason I support the stance that I do is because I feel the evidence supports my side thoroughly, where as I feel the opposing is lacking in persuasive evidence. For example, your idea of society advancing due to a cathartic event, like a tyrant being murdered.



> Why not?


Where is the line drawn, then? How much control can a person claim they have over another? 

Legally, my answer is simple (for the United States): the State should have absolutely no authority to take the lives of their citizens. I'd argue that it's cruel and unusual punishment.   



> Depends on the severity of the murder, mitigating and extenuating circumstances, but if the crime is heinous enough, he is executed. Or should be, anyway.


What makes you the authority?



> The same goes for your happy claims of "not holding people responsible for their actions will bring us utopia."





> I feel you are misinterpreting my points if you feel that I think we can achieve Utopia by acting kindly towards others.



And I have no idea how you got the idea of me thinking that not holding people accountable is the safe way to go about things. It clearly shows you don't understand what I'm saying at all, so let me speak a little more concisely:

--Murder/Execution and torture are not fair forms of punishment. They are cruel in nature and merely cause the problem to be perpetual.
--Social progress is present in moments of compassion for fellow humans, not in acts of rage. 

Evidence, please. 

--I don't think I need to provide why torture is cruel, but execution: http://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/case-against-death-penalty

--Cold War; came about through our hatred of Communists. Men like Senator Joseph McCarthy stunted social growth and advancement.
The Civil Rights Movement was successful because people became sympathetic for blacks, and only when that happened did social progress come about.



> Most? Citation needed. Nobody knew, or cared about them enough to want them either gone or where they were.


You're trying to argue that most people don't know about _Gadaffi_ and _Jong-Il_? Gadaffi is in our news often, and like I said, most people know about him. 

Jong-Il a little less so, but practically everyone I've ever met knows exactly who they are.

Do you have sources that say they don't?



> Because they had nothing to do with the US.


The death of tyrants is pretty big around here.

And Gadaffi had much to do with the US, as did Jong-Il (indirectly with his Anti-America propaganda).



> Too little, too late.


Er...the mastermind behind the terrorist attacks is too little for us? It was a HUGE thing for A LOT of us, but it didn't solve any of our problems. It wouldn't have solved any of our problems even if he died ten minutes after the attack. I don't understand how you can oppose this argument I'm making. Your stance makes absolutely no sense and you've provided no evidence to prove me otherwise. The death of an enemy does absolutely nothing to help us as people.



> Oh, so you didn't get what I was saying. I'll rephrase it.
> 
> Kim Jong Il had countless people tortured and killed. We will call those people "victims." In the interest of clarity, we will call him "sadistic murderous monster." And what I said is that you make no distinction between the victims and the sadistic murderous monster. To which you replied "no one is really different from Jong-Il, or Gadaffi, or Bin Laden." Nice.



And in reality, the people that I am drawing similarities to Jong-Il in particular are very few relative to everyone else (ones that ACT on their desire for power). My basic point is that no one is really different from Jong-Il, or Gadaffi, or Bin Laden, or Thatcher, or Bush (in terms of philosophy). When given power, people tend to desire more and act far more superior than they really are. A little bit of power fools them. Officers in the United States are notorious for this very way of thinking.


----------



## kthnxshwn (Dec 27, 2011)

This thread is still going on. It's funny since I'm positive that only you two are the only ones you care this deeply about the subject.


----------



## Veho (Dec 27, 2011)

Uncle FEFL said:


> Since you refuse to allow a hypothetical to involve you


I do? But I answered to your hypothetical situation. 



> let's say someone close to me is murdered, and I murder the assassin out of revenge. Have I given up my right to life?


No. Mitigating circumstances, remember? Let's say someone close to you had been kept in a box for weeks, taken out occasionally to be raped, beaten, cut with broken glass, then put back into the box, and finally, after weeks of torture, sanded to death with a belt sander. Now let's say you kill the person who did it. Now I am going to say something unorthodox and quite impossible to fit into an absolutistic extremist worldview, and that's this: the two should be examined on a case by case basis. Anyone not able to differentiate between the two cases and act accordingly is a person whose grasp of reality is shaky at best. 



> I don't take a certain stance because it makes me feel good.


Or so you keep telling yourself. 



> evidence


I would like to see some of that evidence. 



> Where is the line drawn, then? How much control can a person claim they have over another?


Well, the kind of murderers we're talking about have absolute control over their victims. And according to you the society shouldn't have any kind of control over the murderer. It should go both ways. You can't violate someone's rights, freedom, _life_, and then demand your own freedom be preserved. The line is wide, and if you cross it that far, you can't expect not to be shoved back.  



> I'd argue that it's cruel and unusual punishment.


I'd argue it's swift and merciful.  



> What makes you the authority?


Me? Or the law? Or society as a whole? What makes any of them authority over anything? 



> And I have no idea how you got the idea of me thinking that not holding people accountable is the safe way to go about things.


The fact you think putting someone away for a few years is a proportionate consequence for their actions. The fact you claim anything other than giving an antisocial monster that's a danger to humanity food, shelter, a standard of living higher than what half the world's population lives in, book deals, visiting rights, fan clubs and the possibility of being out in a few years, is "cruel." 



> Murder/Execution and torture are not fair forms of punishment.


Agreed. In most cases they are severely disproportionate to the crime committed, but since you can only torture someone so long before they succumb to it one way or the other, and you can only kill a person once, proportionate punishment is currently impossible. 



> The Civil Rights Movement was successful because people became sympathetic for blacks, and only when that happened did social progress come about.


Are you equating blacks to murderers? Civil rights should be granted and inalienable to those and only to those who deserved them by way of, given the opportunity, behaving in a civil manner, or more to the point, behaving like human beings and not horrible monsters. 



> You're trying to argue that most people don't know about _Gadaffi_ and _Jong-Il_? Gadaffi is in our news often, and like I said, most people know about him.


At the height of the Iraqi war, the majority of US citizens couldn't find Iraq on a map. And you're saying they know anything about Libya? Or give a flying fuck about their political situation? 



> Jong-Il a little less so, but practically everyone I've ever met knows exactly who they are.


And that's what's commonly referred to as a circle-jerk. 



> Er...the mastermind behind the terrorist attacks is too little for us? It wouldn't have solved any of our problems even if he died ten minutes after the attack.


Since you started answering questions by simply repeating yourself in larger font, I'll do the same. The death of Bin Laden came ten years too late and was separated from his crime by an entirely unrelated, overlong, pointless war whose PR campaign did its best to obfuscate everything in an attempt to hide political agendas (and the fact it had nothing to do with 9/11). There was no clean line between the criminal, his actions, and their consequences. His death (that half of America doesn't even believe really happened) was too little, too late. Instead of being captured, paraded in stocks for all the world to see, and then tried, he was swept under the rug. 


And since you patently refuse to address a point I've been trying to raise since the beginning of this discussion, I will stop posing it as a question and state it as fact. You claim there is no difference between a murderer and the people he murdered. And there is no way of looking at things where that is anything other than bullshit. And any "philosophy" that abstracts things to the point where a sadistic murderer and an innocent victim are equal and no different is completely detached from reality and is as applicable to the real world as giant pink unicorns.


----------



## exangel (Dec 27, 2011)

I care deeply about the subject actually.  But I find it aggravating what lengths these two are going to, to continue to both disagree and be right.

I watched every single documentary about North Korea I could find on Netflix a while back, began maybe a year ago.  If you see the lives of North Koreans wasting away in prison camps, or risking the lives & the most basic human rights of their entire families, just to escape (if you escaped, your families would be punished severely); then, in contrast, you look at those privileged enough to live in North Korea's version of freedom, living in their city; everyone in that country was living in a very horrifying personality cult.  And that is only from the evidence that made it outside of their borders.

Those people who live in the "Civilized" part of North Korea, such as those seen participating in elaborate parades and massive, choreographed gymnastic performances, they _must_ truly worship the State and its Leader or face horrible consequences.  Dissent is not frowned upon, it is punishable by imprisonment.  Dissent in every possible conceivable situation.

In one of the documentaries I saw, a young male pianist whose talent placed him in a special situation, was given specially approved lessons so that he could more perfectly entertain the Great Leader.  I think the instructor was foreign, but the pianist was exposed to Non-Korean music and compositions for the first time in his life, and it was _traumatizing_ to him (because it was the most wonderful thing that he could never enjoy in his home country!).
He tried to keep his passion for foreign music (classical music! without any lyrics to question!) a secret.  Of course he did not have a piano of his own, so all of his practice was in some way supervised.  One day, when he thought he had privacy, he played a known composition by a french composer, and when he was caught, he was informed that it was extremely offensive of him to play non-Korean music, and that he should never do such a thing ever again.. he knew his career was in jeaopardy, and his dream of pursuing his passion was going to torture him for the rest of his life.

He was interviewed in the documentary because he successfully escaped, and after getting asylum, was no longer afraid to speak out against Kim Jong Il's totalitarian personality cult.

Others who were interviewed still had family living in N. Korea and had to be far more discreet about speaking out.  For a family to raise someone, who succeeds in escaping *and* speaks out against the state, the whole family is going to suffer even more for it.

It really burns my guts to see an extended philosophical or moral debate where both parties are aware, at least on the surface, that North Korea is multiple flavors of hell, with a lavishly pampered figurehead controlling its powerful military.. yet, no discussion of how absolutely horrid N. Korea's state is for its citizens (aside from providing external links).

Regardless of whether you reach any (mutual) understanding- Kim Jong Il, all comparisons and hypotheses aside, was a man who invoked awe (in its most literal definition) and obedience from his entire country through excessive discipline, torture, and brain-washing via isolation and propaganda.

His death is good news because he is no longer alive to contribute to and profit from the abuse of his subjects; but realistically speaking, his country will now deify him as they did his father, and perpetuate that little slice of hell the only way they know how.  And that, is to replace the figurehead with the succession of his son.

http://www.syracuse....ong_ils_su.html



> ...People continued lining up Monday in central Kim Il Sung Square, where a massive portrait that usually features Kim Il Sung has been replaced by one of Kim Jong Il, to bow before his smiling image and to lay funereal flowers. Heated buses stood by to give mourners a respite from the cold, and hot tea and water were distributed from beverage kiosks.


----------



## Uncle FEFL (Dec 28, 2011)

I have some family stuff going on, and about 5 hours ago I had a lengthy retort and lost it (big hands, typing on laptop in an awkward fashion, caused me to accidentally hotkey the back arrow on Firefox, losing my entire post). I no longer care about this debate, due to that event. Have a good day, no hard feelings (I don't think you do), and accept my apologies if you wanted to keep this going.


----------

