Saddam dances the Tyburn jig

Namyeknom:
Damn right! I've always said the only way to show the world how wrong torture and murder is, is to torture and execute those that do it!

*Namyeknom sails off on the good ship Sarcasm...
Click to expand...
I'm not aware of any evidence that Saddam was tortured!! What he was given was a trial and detention during that trial which was far from "torture" and a fast and humane death as per his sentence!! A lot more than he ever gave prisoners under his regime!!

But yes, we in the West must hold ourselves to such lofty standards that we will "polite" our way out of existance!! Turning the other cheek is one thing, turning the other cheek and having your head hacked off while doing so is another!!

Romanoffia:
Ever notice how CNN was ever so eager to show terrorist videos of people getting their heads hacked off, yet they don't show Saddam getting snuffed because it is too 'graphic'?
Click to expand...

It's not so much the violence, but the political aspect!! Showing Saddam dying shows a success in Iraq and closure of a chapter of that nation's history!! The showing of the beheading of Westerners in Iraq or elsewhere in the Middle East paints a different picture of the region, the picture CNN and others want you to see!!
 
State sanctioned murder was Saddam's crime, he did it ruthlessly and backed by law. Commiting the same to him is why we're so lacking in foreign sympathy and moral authority. Hey, not saying he was a good guy but I wouldn't mind him spending the rest of his life in jail making special friends with roco the weight lifter.

We denigrate the sanctity of life by using the same ends as the criminals, why have law judge right and wrong when we allow and use the same methods as those we're sworn to arrest and protect society from?
 
mr_sniffles:
State sanctioned murder was Saddam's crime, he did it ruthlessly and backed by law. Commiting the same to him is why we're so lacking in foreign sympathy and moral authority. Hey, not saying he was a good guy but I wouldn't mind him spending the rest of his life in jail making special friends with roco the weight lifter.

We denigrate the sanctity of life by using the same ends as the criminals, why have law judge right and wrong when we allow and use the same methods as those we're sworn to arrest and protect society from?
Click to expand...
Except keeping him locked up forever would then be "torture" in itself according to the bleeding hearts!! Unlikely he'd share a cell with Roco the weightlifter, but I'm pretty sure he'd either be assassinated in prison or broken out at some point!!

Best he just disappear over the horizon rather than linger like a fart in an elevator!!

Equating the death sentence delivered by a Court to the random murder, rape and torture undertaken by Saddam and his regime is some stretch of moral equivalence!! Next you'll say the state sanctioned murder of Jews during the Holocaust was morally equivalent to the execution of Nazis after the war!!

Yeah, I know...Godwin!!
 
Saddam's death squads weren't random, they were set to crush revolt. Murder is murder, no matter the reason.

Best he just disappear over the horizon rather than linger like a fart in an elevator!!
Click to expand...

And I'm happy that the murder of an individual made your life more convenient.
 
Democratic Donkeys:
People like Saddam don't even qualify as human beings.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty coincidental attitude, Saddam probably thought that way about the people he gassed.
Click to expand...
*applauds*

I find myself less angry at the fact he was executed at all (though I am; I just don't want to waste my time digging all my anti-death-penalty arguments out yet again), and more at the circumstances and consequences.

Or perceived consequences. Our Leader has called this a "milestone". Milestone on a road to nowhere? After the past four years, what the hell does this death change? The only possible consequence it may have had is enraging his supporters leading to further death and destruction.

Which brings us to the manner of the execution.

Riverbend called it a "lynching". I thought that description was over the top at first; then I read the accounts (didn't bring myself to watch the video; I find that kind of thing disgusting). This man was hanged before a jeering audience that shouted and cursed at him as he went. This is not the concept of justice or civilized behavior as I understand it. By not granting this man a dignified and solemn end, his executors have shown themselves no better than him - with a mindset that degrades enemies to subhumans and slaughters them like animals.

Anything that could possibly have been accomplished through the trial - such as setting an example of justice being done, of respectful treatment granted even to war criminals - was thoroughly trashed.
 
The jeering and cursing appears to have been perpetrated by a small subset of the officials present who specifically circumvented regulations - it is not as though there was an usher directing people to the "bastard" and "non-bastard" sections of the grandstand. The fact is, there are people there who felt they would gain some sort of emotional closure, or at least vengeance, by behaving is such a way (see also the folks gathered outside US prisons on execution days). All this does is points more to the decision of a few to allow their emotions to overcome the robotic precision with which the execution should have occurred than any sort of institutionalized jackassery.


EDIT - who forgot to cite? me.
 
Byardkuria:
All this does is points more to the decision of a few to allow their emotions to overcome the robotic precision with which the execution should have occurred than any sort of institutionalized jackassery.


EDIT - who forgot to cite?  me.
Click to expand...
All their chanting and shiite slogans points to the fact that as soon as the US isn't around any more they're going to genocide the sunnis. (They are already killing them regularly as policemen; how long before they become these hit squads you decry? About a day after we leave) The hate is there, obviously, and this "subset" of people included high ranking shiite government officials. If we were there to oust a brutal dictator then we'll be back in country a month after we've left it to oust the next brutal dictator who will take Saddams place. Taking into account our history though we won't come back and just absolve ourselves of the whole matter. Until we have the next President who has to act because the people are demanding blood for the next terrorist attack that we're just increasing the odds of the longer we are there.


Ever notice how CNN was ever so eager to show terrorist videos of people getting their heads hacked off, yet they don't show Saddam getting snuffed because it is too 'graphic'?

//

It's not so much the violence, but the political aspect!! Showing Saddam dying shows a success in Iraq and closure of a chapter of that nation's history!! The showing of the beheading of Westerners in Iraq or elsewhere in the Middle East paints a different picture of the region, the picture CNN and others want you to see!!
Click to expand...

You're both wrong. The video was not supposed to be shown to anyone for a period of time to make sure that there would not be a reaction to it from insurgents. That is why the guy who filmed it and released it is in deep shit. Yes, and it was a deep and resounding success, because now that guy who was isolated and imprisoned won't be able to organize the killing of more people. Oh wait, the violence continued after he was in jail...hmmm. His dying won't change a damn thing except give people a martyr.
 
Sorry for the double post, but I forgot to mention this bit:

Polts:
Showing Saddam dying shows a success in Iraq
Click to expand...

Are you joking? Showing the Iraqi people living in peace despite their religious differences and embracing those differences as evidence of what makes their newly freed country different from the rest of the region would be showing success in Iraq. Showing Iraqi's respecting other's differences would be showing success.

Showing the hanging of Saddam Hussein serves no journalistic purpose. Period.

And, please correct me if I'm wrong, but no major American news outlet actually showed anyone getting their head cut off, correct?
 
OPArsenal:
Polts:
Showing Saddam dying shows a success in Iraq
Click to expand...

Are you joking? Showing the Iraqi people living in peace despite their religious differences and embracing those differences as evidence of what makes their newly freed country different from the rest of the region would be showing success in Iraq. Showing Iraqi's respecting other's differences would be showing success.
Click to expand...
Now that's just crazy talk.
 
Namyeknom:
Damn right! I've always said the only way to show the world how wrong torture and murder is, is to torture and execute those that do it!

*Namyeknom sails off on the good ship Sarcasm...
Click to expand...
Actually, apart from the torture, the execution angle is the best way. I suppose today they would give Hitler and Pol Pot villas in the south of France and a book/movie deal along with their own shows on CNN.
 
That is indeed what I was suggesting. Its clear the only alternative to execution in these cases, is enforced occupation of villas in the south of France.

*Namyeknom admires his considerable fleet of good ship Sarcasm's...
 
mr_sniffles:
Saddam's death squads weren't random, they were set to crush revolt. Murder is murder, no matter the reason.
Click to expand...
Oh, sorry!! I wasn't aware Iraqi athletes that were raped and/or tortured for "underperforming" were part of a revolt!! I guess Saddam nipped that revolt in the bud before their terrible performances undermined his regime!!

And I'm happy that the murder of an individual made your life more convenient.
Click to expand...

It makes no difference to my day to day life!! The news of his death would have some impact on th efamilies of those that were killed or tortured by his regime, however!! Lets just say, I share their happiness!!
 
:agree:

Bravo, Polsty! :agree:



Next time I get to Oz, remind me to buy you a few beers!
 
Namyeknom:
That is indeed what I was suggesting. Its clear the only alternative to execution in these cases, is enforced occupation of villas in the south of France.

*Namyeknom admires his considerable fleet of good ship Sarcasm's...
Click to expand...
*Apollo-Industria sinks the good ship Sarcasm.

There is no more of Sarcasm for Captain Nam and his ironic crew.
 
OPArsenal:
Sorry for the double post, but I forgot to mention this bit:

Polts:
Showing Saddam dying shows a success in Iraq
Click to expand...

Are you joking? Showing the Iraqi people living in peace despite their religious differences and embracing those differences as evidence of what makes their newly freed country different from the rest of the region would be showing success in Iraq. Showing Iraqi's respecting other's differences would be showing success.
Click to expand...
I said a success, not success!! There is much work to be done, but the capture, trial and execution of the tyrant is a success for a free Iraq!!

Peopel of different ethnicities do not get along that well in the US, Europe or any other country, so your idea of what constitutes success is somewhat unattainable!! What constitutes success in Iraq for me is a stable democracy where all Iraqis have a say in their government!! It has not been achieved, yet!!
 
Ach, I feel a bit a pity for me. Are only Americans discussing this?

Alright, be it so! I won't break up with tradition. (Aah, right, Nam isn't American, but he didn't really discuss).

I only wanted to say that I feel that you should stop mentioning the Nazis all the time. I don't know why so many people are obsessed with them. They're not worse or better than many living dictators. They were elected by the German people, and they did know what the Nazis program looked like before. By thinking of Hitler as the absolute evil , you forget that he was as human as you and me, and something like the Shoa happens all the time. Take Darfur.

And I tend to agree more with DD, Flemingovia, Mr. Sniffles; hence everybody who opposes the execution of Saddam.

"Can you bring life back to the dead?
Then don't be too quick with a death sentence!"

Yeah, from a very popular film, but still quite true...




And somehow I feel that it is arrogant to discuss a serious theme just like that, en passant, on a forum....how we small Western kids dare to judge the situation realistically? We sit around, with a superfast internet connection, a full fridge, a lot of money
(actually, I guess we are all belonging to the richest 10 % of the world population! You have a shelter (eg house/flat), meal every day, drinking water every day, frigging good education, perhaps an own bank account?? Ok, you are of the richest 10%), and talk about things nobody can really imagine. Or? Has anyone experienced the invasion of his homecountry? Hm? Like the US, for example?

Goodbye, VZ
 
Because you invest some of your identity in your opinion. Being enthusiastic about a topic and somebody saying "I think it sucks/is kinda stupid/whatever" is being interpreted as "you're stupid for believing/thinking that".
Click to expand...

Yea Whatever! Quit smoking pot. :evil:
 
mental imagination:
Because you invest some of your identity in your opinion. Being enthusiastic about a topic and somebody saying "I think it sucks/is kinda stupid/whatever" is being interpreted as "you're stupid for believing/thinking that".
Click to expand...

Yea Whatever! Quit smoking pot. :evil:
Click to expand...
In reference to Vrtbovska Zahrada, I guess some people just say "your opinion sucks" in a more verbose manner!!

I mean, how dare we have these pesky opinions let alone dare express them!! Seems some people have more sympathy for mass murders than they do the average person expressing their point of view!! I mean, how dare we condemn Hitler or Saddam when we commit the mortal sin of expressing our opinions on a forum!! It is us that is truly evil!! Repent now before it is too late!!

PS. I'm not American!!
 
No. But some people here seem to forget that "kicking the Iraqis asses" does imply violence against civilians, in a measure that it seems hard to justify the invasion.
What I meant in my ^^^post: it is easy for us to say we should do something about a dictator, when this dictator is in far away country, and it's not us who are suffering, but people somewhere....on the other side of the world (at least for the Americans).

I didn't show sympathy for Hussein. I condemn his deeds (and hence condemn also the USA who supported him for 2 decades), and I would have liked to see a revolution in Iraq, bringing down his reign and then installing a more human system.
But again, the invasion of Iraq by the US and its (more or less) insignificant allies was against all international law and treaties, as the Iraq was an independant state at that time.
Or I would've liked to see an assassination of Hussein. That would be justified. Just an CIA agent or so, who risks his life. Nothing more.

I didn't say we shouldn't discuss that, I only said that it's necessary to pay attention what you say. And not to think your own opinion has to be right one.



P.S.: Nice I found someone who isn't! Me, neither!
 
Actually, the war was justified under UN resolution!! The UN just chose not to follow their own directive!!

Secondly, it is not Americans killing civilians but insurgents supported by Al Qaeda on one side and Iran on the other!! A revolution in Iraq was nigh on impossible to oust Saddam, if it did get off the ground, the civilian death toll would have far outweighed any civilian death toll in the current war!!

Idealism is great but rarely translates into reality!!
 
And somehow I feel that it is arrogant to discuss a serious theme just like that, en passant, on a forum....how we small Western kids dare to judge the situation realistically? We sit around, with a superfast internet connection, a full fridge, a lot of money
(actually, I guess we are all belonging to the richest 10 % of the world population! You have a shelter (eg house/flat), meal every day, drinking water every day, frigging good education, perhaps an own bank account?? Ok, you are of the richest 10%), and talk about things nobody can really imagine. Or? Has anyone experienced the invasion of his homecountry? Hm? Like the US, for example?
Click to expand...

Are you saying that simply because we are relatively rich that our opinions don't matter?

Actually, the war was justified under UN resolution!! The UN just chose not to follow their own directive!!
Click to expand...

1.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm
2. Regardless, the point is that the only justification in the beginning, that of WMD's, turned out to be false.

Secondly, it is not Americans killing civilians but insurgents supported by Al Qaeda on one side and Iran on the other!! A revolution in Iraq was nigh on impossible to oust Saddam, if it did get off the ground, the civilian death toll would have far outweighed any civilian death toll in the current war!!
Click to expand...

The first part of this claim is patently ridiculous. There is no way that American forces could have killed exactly 0 civilians in Iraq. Regardless of the cause, American forces have killed civilians, whether accidentally (collateral damage) or intentionally (Haditha).

The second statement, that the death toll would have been higher, is also dubious. As of right now the number of civilian deaths is approaching a quarter of a million (http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html).
 
Southwest Asia:
1.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm
2. Regardless, the point is that the only justification in the beginning, that of WMD's, turned out to be false.
Click to expand...
Doesn't mean the war is illegal!! Iraq frquently breached UN resolutions that should have resulted in military action taken under the UN banner!! UN decided, as is its way, to close its eyes and cover its ears and hope things would fix themselves!! Regardless of the publicised reason for the war, the war is legal!!

The first part of this claim is patently ridiculous. There is no way that American forces could have killed exactly 0 civilians in Iraq. Regardless of the cause, American forces have killed civilians, whether accidentally (collateral damage) or intentionally (Haditha).
Click to expand...

What is patently ridiculous is your all-or-nothing interpretation of my statement!! Sure, US forces have killed Iraqi civilians, but I'll bet the vast majority of civilian casualties are from insurgent bombings and sectarian reprisal attacks!!

The second statement, that the death toll would have been higher, is also dubious. As of right now the number of civilian deaths is approaching a quarter of a million (http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html).
Click to expand...

Of course my statement is speculation!! It is based on something that did not happen!! However, the past history of Saddam's dealings with revolts suggests that the civilian casualties would be very high had one gained any momentum!! Throw in the sectarian violence that would have followed any successful rebellion (as unlikely as that would have been!!) and you would be looking at a massive toll with regards to civilian casualties whether the rebellion was successful or crushed!!

How many civilians dies in Rwanda? Sierra Leone? Ivory Coast? Dafur in Sudan? Who killed them?! The US weren't there and the UN sat on its hands!! So who killed them?! Rebellion, it causes a lot of civilian casualties because neither side has any rules to follow or a worldmedia to answer to, unlike the US and Coalition forces wherever they are deployed!!
 
Doesn't mean the war is illegal!! Iraq frquently breached UN resolutions that should have resulted in military action taken under the UN banner!! UN decided, as is its way, to close its eyes and cover its ears and hope things would fix themselves!! Regardless of the publicised reason for the war, the war is legal!!
Click to expand...

Regardless of whether the war is legal, the reason for it was wrong. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.

What is patently ridiculous is your all-or-nothing interpretation of my statement!! Sure, US forces have killed Iraqi civilians, but I'll bet the vast majority of civilian casualties are from insurgent bombings and sectarian reprisal attacks!!
Click to expand...

Your claim was without qualifiers, meaning that you specifically meant that no casualties had been caused by US forces.

Of course my statement is speculation!! It is based on something that did not happen!! However, the past history of Saddam's dealings with revolts suggests that the civilian casualties would be very high had one gained any momentum!! Throw in the sectarian violence that would have followed any successful rebellion (as unlikely as that would have been!!) and you would be looking at a massive toll with regards to civilian casualties whether the rebellion was successful or crushed!!
Click to expand...

The point you fail to address, however, is the fact that you don't provide a reason as to why the death toll would be higher than it is right now.
 
Southwest Asia:
Regardless of whether the war is legal, the reason for it was wrong. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.
Click to expand...
Except the point I was making WAS that the war was not illegal in reply to the poster who said it was!!

Your claim was without qualifiers, meaning that you specifically meant that no casualties had been caused by US forces.
Click to expand...

My claim was with reference to targeting civilians...Americans are not killing civilians intentionally, insurgents are!! Yet, oddly enough, people don't seem to care much about that!! I guess it doesn't fit the anti-American theme!! Much like the peopel that died under Saddam's regime that didn't make the headlines on CNN!!

The point you fail to address, however, is the fact that you don't provide a reason as to why the death toll would be higher than it is right now.
Click to expand...

Actually, I did!! I suggest re-reading what I posted!! Refer in particular to Saddam's past actions to subdue rebellion in Iraq and the civilian massacres that take place when rebellion takes place in other parts of the world!! If Saddam were overthrown by the Shia then Iran would move in full-scale!! If the Kurds rebelled successfully, you'd have Turkey entering the fray as well as probably Syria on both counts!! The presence of US and Coalition troops is keeping these countries from overtly interfering in Iraq at present which, in my opinion, means less civilian casualties than full-scale rebellion or even a failed rebellion and the reprisals Saddam would bring to those communities that rebelled!!
 
Poltsamaa:
What is patently ridiculous is your all-or-nothing interpretation of my statement!! Sure, US forces have killed Iraqi civilians, but I'll bet the vast majority of civilian casualties are from insurgent bombings and sectarian reprisal attacks!!
Click to expand...
Which wouldn't take place if the US had not invaded the country.


SA, I only meant that despite the fact that it is nearly impossible for us to understand what is going on, how it must feel like, some here are defending the idea of using heavy violence with a fervour that seems quite...well, surprising for me. Like I said, it's easy to say that if you'll never really feel the consequences.
 
Vrtbovska Zahrada:
Which wouldn't take place if the US had not invaded the country.
Click to expand...
No, we could have all sat on our couches without having to hear about the political, religious and ethnic rivals Saddam was murdering on a regular basis!! Not to mention the torture of "failed" athletes and the rapes committed by his two sons as they ran amok!! All funded by the food for oil rort aided by the UN itself!! I guess it is much easier to sit back and relax when the deaths are silent and not broadcast into your lounge room!!

If we had leadership like yours prior to WW2 I wonder where we'd be?!
 
Heh. Thread's over.

invokegodwinhg0.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top