Which of Invictus's two statements do you think is a lie, Putin?

You did say that people should be executed for killing bears for sport. You said that in this thread.

So, presumably, Invictus's lie must come in the other part of his statement, where he claims you have argued against the death penalty for murder.

Do you support the death penalty for humans convicted of murdering other humans?

I can't find anywhere I've said I'm opposed to all capital punishment. I've said it depends on how it is used.

http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?threadID=772443&page-thread=2#threadPager

So you're full of it.

"Do you support the death penalty for humans convicted of murdering other humans?"

Depends on the case and the system in which the case is tried.

Interesting. I, on the other hand, would be opposed to it at all times.

But thanks for clarifying. Possibly Invictus was mistaken then.

Making your support or opposition to the death penalty dependent on the governing system of the state is no standard at all. Human rights are universal. Your position is just an out for you to be OK with China executing drug dealers while opposing America executing serial killers.

You fell for the sidestep, Jamiet99uk. No one, least of all me, claimed he was against capital punishment in all cases. He's championing the recent political execution in North Korea, for one.

If, under any circumstances, one supports the death penalty for killing a bear but opposes it for killing a human, that makes one a monster who has no real respect for human life.

Shameless lying. This is what you said.

"Saying people should be executed for killing a bear but not executed for killing a person does make you a monster, yes."

Liar.

You're against capital punishment in the United States! You've said so.

"Human rights are universal."

You don't believe that, warmongering scum.

"You're against capital punishment in the United States! You've said so."

Nice equivocation.

It's strange how you persist in calling me a warmonger when I vocally oppose American intervention in Libya, Syria, and Iran on this very site. Why let facts get in the way of a good jab, though?

Whether he believes it or not is irrelevant. What matters is whether you believe it. You clearly don't. Why not?

Invictus says I'm opposed to executing humans. I say I've never said that. Invictus, instead of admitting he was mistaken, decides to suddenly add the qualifier of the USA.

"It's strange how you persist in calling me a warmonger when I vocally oppose American intervention in Libya, Syria, and Iran on this very site. Why let facts get in the way of a good jab, though?"

Because that's utter bullshit and you've supported the assassination of Gaddafi and bemoaned every single peace deal regarding Syria and Iran.

I hope you get eaten by a bear.

Deathwishes from lying scum like you is par for the course around here.

@Putin33

"you've supported the assassination of Gaddafi"

Well, it would have been better to have a free election, but how else does anyone get rid of the head of the government in an authoritarian system? Every change of leadership in such a system involves a power struggle and an existential crisis.

"Anyone gone bowhunting for bears"

No. Going hunting for bears with as big of a caliber as I could carry for an extended period of time seemed like a better idea.

So you're defending the torture and murder of Gaddafi while in custody?

Not surprised. I can now dispense with listening to your hollow lectures about your supposed commitment to human rights.

No, I'm not defending the torture. I definitely have qualms about summary executions, even of dictators. But nevertheless, when there's no procedure for removing a head of state, the stakes become ludicrous, and anyone even contemplating trying to do it is betting their own life. It's no surprise that the most aggressive and violent opposition is the only opposition that has any hope of prevailing, which is another weakness of authoritarian systems. There is no contingency for peaceful succession and no procedure to change the course of government. It's a power struggle and it's ruthless and it's inherent to authoritarianism.

There have been plenty of transitions of non-liberal democracies which have taken place without brutal murders of heads of state. To suggest that this is somehow inevitable is completely ahistorical and a total cop-out.

@Putin33 Can you give some examples of such transitions that did not involve the death or incapacitancy of the previous dictator?

Pinochet - Chile
Montt - Guatemala
Marcos - Philippines
Gorbachov - USSR
Karoly Grosz - Hungary
Todor Zhivkov - Bulgaria
Wojchiech Jaruzelski - Poland
Gustav Husak - Czechoslovakia
Marcelo Caetano - Portugal
Videla/Viola/Galtieri, etc junta - Argentina

Just to name a few.

It's not as if Gaddafi was just strolling along and was accosted by thugs. This happened after over forty years of tyrannical rule and a short but brutal civil war. More smoke and mirrors from our resident dictator fellator.

Our resident homophobic warmonger neglects to mention that he was anally raped with a dagger while in custody (yes by jihadist thugs) and then a bullet was put in his head, again while in custody.

That he apologies for this action makes him a disgusting piece of shit and a raging hypocrite with no credibility of anything involving human rights, ever.

Gaddafi's "tyrannical regime" made Libya have one of the highest living standards on the African continent, with very high levels of equality, which was his real crime. He also sided with anti-colonial forces while Invictus's heroes propped up every single colonial regime on the planet, again - Gaddafi's real crime.

The so-called "short civil war" is occurring again in Libya, thanks to Invictus's jihadist heroes making a mess of what once was an orderly, prosperous, tolerant, and egalitarian country.

But I do enjoy how this warmongering pile of garbage likes to pretend he wasn't in favor of interventions throughout the Middle East. Talk about smoke and mirrors.

I'm glad Gaddafi's dead. It's a shame he could only die once.

And you're glad Libya is crucified. The country is dying multiple times over so you get your wish. What are thousands of dead Libyans to sadists like you?

Being glad Gaddafi's dead does not automatically mean one is happy with the way Libya is today.

@Putin33 OK, I'll amend my statement in light of your evidence. If the dictator gives up without putting up much of a fight in a disorderly power struggle, then he might escape with his life. Fair enough, but does a disorderly power struggle count as a procedure for change of government? Also, what really gives the winner of the power struggle the right to govern?