Saddam dances the Tyburn jig

From a British-American relations perspective, it was interesting to see Margret Becket and Blair try and juggle Britains opposition to the death penalty with supporting what the Americans may have wished and with supporting the Iraq we have set up.

Will be interesting to see know, if his death makes him a matry or actually does any good to the situation.
 
If there is a riot, it will be Shiites dancing in the streets for joy!

"Tyburn Jig" - LOL! I haven't heard that one in years!
 
Words fail me.....

This may well be the most disgusting moment I've ever experienced.....

There is no justification for this.....

:no:
 
There is indeed more that enough justification. My numbers need to be adjusted - just as 150,000 Kurds that Saddam gassed.

I was watching CNN (The Communist News Network :lol: ) and heard an Iraqi qoman rejoicing about Saddam doing the rope-dance. She said that this is a message to every dictator and tyrannt around the world that this is what they will get when they get caught up with.

You know what really gets me? The fact that the news media played and replayed entire videos of innocent victims getting their heads cut off and never blinked. Yet the same news media blanches at showing a video of Saddam getting his worthless neck snapped. The only pity and shame is that the Iraqis can't resurrect and re-hang Saddam 150,000 times to make up for just a fraction of the people he deliberately had murdered.

The civilized world has to draw the line somewhere and have the will to dispatch rabid dogs like Saddam and not look back or regret it for one moment. People like Saddam don't even qualify as human beings. It would be a fatal crime to to seek out thugs like Saddam and send them packing to Hell at the first opportunity.

To not dispatch trash like Saddam Hussein is a crime that will only reinforce the fall of western civilization and hand it over to the likes of Saddam and other terrorist thugs.

When someone is out to exterminate you, you just don't sit around and not stop the threat. Unfortunately for thugs like Saddam, killing them is the only way to put an end to it. I suppose that if Hitler were alive today, they would let him live and retire him to a villa in the south of France or some crap like that.

The biggest pitty is that they can only hang that bastard once. Such and instantaneous death for The Butcher of Baghdad was an act of mercy. They should have turned him over to the Kurds and let them carve him up piece by piece, as slowly as possible.

Now that Saddam is gone and he isn't coming back, Iraq will settle down and can move forward. The only rioting will be Shiites dancing for joy that Saddam was sent straight to Hell.
 
So like....tell me how you really feel :evil:

Seriously though I have to agree with you on your point about hunting down and "dispatching" tyrants and dictators who rule with such callous abandon. There are many who have gotten through loopholes like Pol Pot and Idi Amin, I just have to wonder what the world would have been like if the above two individuals had been dealt with in the same way as Saddam.
 
Nem:
There are many who have gotten through loopholes like Pol Pot.
Click to expand...
But we liked Pol Pot and supported him because he wasn't a lousy commie. :shrug:

Just like we used to support Saddam way back when. Funny how people can fall out of favor.

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.

The civilized world has to draw the line somewhere and have the will to dispatch rabid dogs like Saddam and not look back or regret it for one moment.
Click to expand...

The only way to stop the violence is with more violence! Yep! Where do you draw the line? If all life is to be considered to have intrinsic worth and not deserve to be killed by anyone then how can killing be justified in any instance?

Now that Saddam is gone and he isn't coming back, Iraq will settle down and can move forward. The only rioting will be Shiites dancing for joy that Saddam was sent straight to Hell.
Click to expand...

Just like we were greeted with open arms and parades when we first went over there to get the WMDs, or install a democracy by force, something like that! So our troops can come home then, mission accomplished! Awesome!

But whatever, i'm probably just some touhy feely lieberal (as evidenced by my user name which is totally the truth) who supports terrorists because I don't believe killing a human being, no matter how despicable, is right.
 
While it is hard to feel symapthy for Saddam, I have the same problem with this action as I do over the whole of the war in Iraq. That, given that there were no WMDs, and it seems that our governments knew that but "sexed up" the reports to give more justification to the war, the only reason we went to Iraq was regime change.

And we are very selective about the regimes we want to change.

Saddam was a dictator and Iraq was non-democratic.

Fine.

Then let us move on to:

Abdelaziz Bouteflika of Algeria
Jose Eduardo dos Santos of Angola
Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan
Aleksandr Lukashenka of Belarus
Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck of Bhutan
Hassanal Bolkiah Mu’izzaddin Waddaulah of Brunei
Than Shwe of Burma
Hun Sen of Cambodia
Paul Biya of Cameroon
Idriss Deby of Chad
Hu Jintao of China
Joseph Kabila of Congo-Kinshasa
Laurent Gbagbo of Côte d'Ivoire
Fidel Castro of Cuba
Hosni Mubarak of Egypt
Teodoro Obiang Nguema of Mbasogo, Equatorial Guinea
Isaias Afwerki of Eritrea
Frank Bainimarama of Fiji
Lansana Conte of Guinea
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran
Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan
Khamtai Siphandon of Laos
Muammar al-Qaddafi of Libya
Maumoon Abdul Gayoom of Maldives
Kim Jong Il of North Korea
Qabus bin Said al-Said of Oman
Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan
Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani of Qatar
Vladimir Putin of Russia
Paul Kagame of Rwanda
Abdullah ibn Abdul Aziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia
Omar Al-Bashir of Sudan
Mswati III of Swaziland
Bashar al-Assad of Syria
Imomali Rakhmonov of Tajikistan
Sondhi Boonyaratkalin of Thailand
Faure Gnassingbé Eyadéma of Togo
Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia
Sultan Khalifa bin Zayed al Nehyan of the United Arab Emirates
Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan
Nong Duc Manh of Vietnam
Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe
Pervez Musharraf, dictator of Part of Kashmir
Mohammed VI of Morocco ruler of Western Sahara
Musa Sude Yalahow Rules part of Somalia
Hu Jintao Rules Tibet
Igor Smirnov Rules Transdniester in Moldova

Sadam was guilty of dreadful human rights violations?

It is worth noting that even at his WORST, Iraq did not top the league in human rights violations. If that is a criterion for invasion and regime change, then let us move on to

North KOrea, Indonesia, Algeria, Lybia, Colombia, Egypt,

All of the above were consistently worse human rights violators than Iraq, even under Saddam.

In fact, a 2004 report said that the only nations in the world NOT to have violated basic human rights in 2003 were Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Iceland and Costa Rica. So they should be safe then.

My basic point is this: Whatever you feel about Saddam, it is difficult to see this invasion, trial and execution as anything other than political when others who are as guilty or more guilty are allowed to continue their activity unabated and without censure.
 
Just wanna chime in on some of the points raised. Re what FL said, I agree completely. I've been reading the national responses to Saddam's death, and it is incredibly hypocritical for the UK do to anything but condemn it. Beckett's reaction reads something like "We're glad he's dead, but you, er, you shouldn't have killed him.".

If I can echo DD's touchy-feely commie views; I'm feeling oddly conflicted about the whole thing, really. It's like it somehow doesn't feel right, that he was rushed to the gallows so quick. I almost feel sorry for a blood-thirsty murdering despot, which sounds insane, I realise, but in the end it's just yet another death. Although it was a foregone conclusion, it would have set a better precident to just still him on some God-forsaken rock for the rest of his life, ála Napo. I don't think his death will make a hiota of difference to the chaos in Iraq right now anyway. Regardless, I don't think history will judge the event well.

Eh, we can only hope Fidel goes next, along with Kim-Jong Mentally-Il, then Mugabe, then the clowns who run Burma. Although I doubt any of these fellas will face a short drop and sudden stop, Saddam-style.
 
I'm sorry.....I just had this weird thing about it being the 21st century....and yet we still have this archaic method of execution with all the "gloaters"*......

I cannot hold with the kneejerk reaction that he wasn't deserving of human status....when he in fact behaved like the majority of humans in that position of power.....as Flem's list shows he is quite normal and suffered from a common human frailty.....a lack of morals and ethics.....

And as to the reasoning that the death penalty discourages any type of behaviour....then why are there always so many people on death row in america....why were they not discouraged.....

The only message this sends to dictators is....don't get caught....

And if you think Iraq will now settle down and move on......what makes you so sure they want Democracy???
when so many in the west decry and distrust their own governments.....why should any iraquis be thinking..."ooh....that's a good idea....a government that lies to it's own people and does whatever it wants regardless of the people's feelings....that's just what we need..."



*{innappropriate blackadder humor}
 
Now everyone should be able to go on with their lives after whining about the death of a murderer. Humanity is known for I have the power to do as I please. Hitler took the cowards way out and Saddam stood his ground till his neck snapped. Yet they both had one conceptual idea in common. (discuss that concept insted) Um wait a sec is that to much of a debate?

Here is something else for all of us to think about.

One mans opinion is another mans shit being flushed down the toilet of life.

*Turns the page and moves on*

By the way DD I did no comparison of the two (except for being in hell)

for those who care to read
 
Oh Yea. By the way.

You are welcome.

Don't mind this DD, But I busted a gut over this quote
If you do one of those "Fixed your post for you LOLROFLMAO!!1" then I will hate you forever. It is stupid and annoying, stop.
Click to expand...

Thanx for the reminder of how easy hate can be evoked. :fish:
 
The whole issue being is that Saddam got justice regardless of whether or not one has a soft spot in their heart (and presumably, the brain also). :P

The thing that totally nausiates me: The argument that violence is no means to stop violence.

Hitler trampled all over Europe in WWII. Was it wrong for his victim nations to use violence (their own military) to defend themselves? This attitude that it is wrong to defend one's self or to exterminate terrorists and thugs is utterly inane and uninformed to the point of being insane.

What the touchy-feely lefty-liberal types fail to see is that if you don't defend yourself against terrorists and dictatorial thugs, or you let dictatorial thugs like Saddam go their merry way gassing and murdering people, you are just inviting them to continue.

I mean, what should the US have done after the 9/11 attacks? Just sit back and invite Ossama bin Laden in for tean and scones? Should we have just sat around like a bunch of useless frogs and said, 'gee, if we retaliate it will only make the terrorists mad' or 'well, if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone'. Sorry, wrong answer - the terrorists are already mad and they didn'l leave us alone. and they won't either.

Some people may scoff at the whole idea of 'The War on Terror', but they fail to see that is is a 'war' for the very survival of Western Civilization against a bunch of Islamo-Fascist thugs and murderers. Some people need to be reminded that these people are out to kill anyone who isn't them. In case no one has noticed, there's a kook in Iran who has vowed to exterminate anyone who isn't his brand of Islam.

Face it, all the terrorist see when they look at us are 'infidels' that need to be exterminated. Leaving terrorist types alone isn't going to one tit of good in getting them to leave us alone. It's like asking Hitler to stop killing Jews, Gypsies and anyone else who he chooses to kill. Appeasement only leads to the emboldenment of thugs and terrorists.

I know some people will simply wilt at my use of the 'Hitler Analogy' when talking about terrorists like Saddam and that fruitcake in Iran. Let's see, the President of Iran makes comments that he promises to exterminate Israel and every Jew in the world and then exterminate everyone who isn't his brand of Islam because they're 'infidels' it sounds undeniably like Hitler. And that bastard means every word of it. We better all hope and pray that Iran never gets nukes or we're all in for it.

After going through the first Gulf War and seeing what Saddam and his merry band are capable of, and how the 'west' simply screwed over the Kurds, you might undertand why I might rejoice and Saddam getting his neck stretched. In fact, there are a lot of thugs that need a good neck-stretching in this world and a lot of them are members of the UN.

Anyone who thinks that terrorists and thugs like Saddam even be allowed to continue breathing the air and continue their shenanagans should go and live in Iran, Syria, North Korea or any number of thug-o-ramas and get educated.

Violence is the only thing that violent terrorists and thugs understand. You don't try to reason with rabid dogs - you shoot them for everyone's sake.

The Iraqis hanging Saddam sends a very clear message to all thugs and dictators around the world: this is what is going to happen to you when we get your worthless arses.

And that goes for murderers, rapists, child molesters and other assorted clackers who have it coming. :bat:

Hanging was too good for Saddam. I would have tied him up and handed him over to the Kurds. The only pitty about Saddam's execution was that he could only be executed once. Too bad they couldn't resurrect him and do it one time for every Kurd, Shiite and everyone else he had murdered. Now that would be justice.
 
Now that made sense.

Not to quote (to late) the old adage. An Eye for an Eye.

We as a so called nation of peace abiding citizens Need to make a stand.

Maybe then the terrorists will be the ones who start doing the thinking instead of the killing.

Another quote by (you all should know).

In order to achive peace you must to be prepared for war.

Ok now flush this for those who disagree.

:bat:

this quote also says it all.
Romanoffia Violence is the only thing that violent terrorists and thugs understand. You don't try to reason with rabid dogs - you shoot them for everyone's sake. And that goes for murderers, rapists, child molesters and other assorted clackers who have it coming.
Click to expand...

Also Think of the children of the future.
:warning:
 
Romanoffia:
The whole issue being is that Saddam got justice regardless of whether or not one has a soft spot in their heart (and presumably, the brain also). :P
Click to expand...
Just because one is against capital punishment, does not mean one is mentally impaired, Roman. For the record, I do support executions as punishment for certain crimes.

Violence can be used against violence, but it's not the only way. Hitler first tried to do his thing against physically and mentally disabled babies and children - did you know? But he figured out pretty quickly that that wasn't going to go over very well with the German people, so he moved to a different victim(s), one(s) he could more easily brainwash his nation into assisting, or at the very least, not strongly resisting, the slaughter of. In the first case, violence wasn't necessary. People knew that killing children who couldn't defend themselves was wrong, and wouldn't allow it. The second case wasn't any less wrong, but because of Hitler's excellent skills of coercion, violence was necessary on the part of the Allies to defeat the Nazi Party and their Holocaust.

Was violence necessary here? It's not completely certain. Will violence be necessary in the future? More than likely. It all depends on the circumstances of the violence already taking place.
 
Should if caught, Osama Bin Laden be executed for his crimes against the USA or should he be allowed to live out his life still living in isolation (prison)knowing he gets 3 squares from the weak US?
 
I have no doubt he would be executed - see Timothy McVeigh. Concerns of martyrdom would be pushed aside, as the American populace would demand blood.
 
Not to quote (to late) the old adage. An Eye for an Eye.
Click to expand...

Yes, that mentality has worked real well for the last few thousand years. :eyeroll:

I prefer "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and the whole world would soon be blind and toothless."

What the touchy-feely lefty-liberal types fail to see is that if you don't defend yourself against terrorists and dictatorial thugs, or you let dictatorial thugs like Saddam go their merry way gassing and murdering people, you are just inviting them to continue.
Click to expand...

We wouldn't have to defend against them if we didn't continually keep sticking our noses in their affairs! Saddam didn't manufacture that gas himself, it was given to him by the US to support them in their war against Iran. Iraq was an absolute non-threat to the United States before we invaded them pre-emptively. Saddam was not supporting Al Qaeda, he was against religious fundamentalism and was a Secular leader. Not that I am trying to defend his actions but the whole reason for invading Iraq was a complete lie, and this execution is just another distraction akin to the whole "Mission Accomplished" fiasco of a few years ago. But no, we HAD to invade Iraq for our own protection, and now what we're left with is a new breeding ground for terrorists, which it wasn't before. We are all going to be reaping what we have sown for the next generation, the crop being hatred of the US. That you said Iraq will settle down now shows just how out of touch with reality you are. Yeah the shiites will be out in the streets celebrating, then right after that they'll go out and continue to oppress and kill the sunnis who until the last few years had oppressed and kill them. All because they share the ideology of an eye for an eye!

But hey "We got him!" It only took 3,000 US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilians dead. Who deserves to die for their deaths?
 
mental imagination:
Should if caught, Osama Bin Laden be executed for his crimes against the USA or should he be allowed to live out his life still living in isolation (prison)knowing he gets 3 squares from the weak US?
Click to expand...
How does giving someone life in prison make us appear weak? Killing him would give a cause to a lot of angry people, while keeping him a prisoner to waste away in prison he would fade out of existence. You think death is a deterrant for people who believe when they die fighting their Jihad they get the express elevator to heaven?
 
I think perhaps there is some misunderstanding of my initial post....my problem is not with the penalty....but with the method involved.....It just seems so barbaric and amateur....

And by the way Rom...there are plenty of crazy americans who think anyone not their type of christian should die....so do we round them up and hang em.....

And don't forget that one person's rabid dog terrorist who cannot be reasoned with but should be shot is another persons freedom fighter......Trying to liberate their own country from christian fundamentalist invasion......

And also if you kick even the most reasonable dog in the world enough times it will eventually bite you in the ass.....
 
Meh, live by the sword, die by the sword!!

Only Saddam got a trial unlike the thousands he sent to torture, rape and death!! Good riddance to the trash!!

Also, a well executed (pardon the pun!!) hanging is one of the more humane methods of execution!! I thought perhaps Saddam was hoping for imitation as a final flattery by having himself thrown off a building, run over by a tank or fed into a woodchipper!! Lucky for him, he was treated with a humanity he did not deserve!!

s196.jpg
 
Romanoffia:
Hitler trampled all over Europe in WWII. Was it wrong for his victim nations to use violence (their own military) to defend themselves? This attitude that it is wrong to defend one's self or to exterminate terrorists and thugs is utterly inane and uninformed to the point of being insane.

What the touchy-feely lefty-liberal types fail to see is that if you don't defend yourself against terrorists and dictatorial thugs, or you let dictatorial thugs like Saddam go their merry way gassing and murdering people, you are just inviting them to continue.
Click to expand...
And Hitler took power how? A little thing like WWI and the Treaty of Versailles had nothing to do with it?

"Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness. We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love...Our aim must never be to defeat or humiliate [sic] man." Martin Luther King Jr

The ends never justify the means and if you think creating a new generation of Iraqi terrorists was the only way to end Saddam's reign then you're more naive than I would have ever thought. Iraq had no links to terrorism before Saddam, they do now.

As for the war on terror, you can't win it by military means whatsoever. The Middle East proves that just fine, you're only perpetuating a culture of fear in a cruel game of shot for shot except instead of a sore arm you have a big pile of dead bodies coupled with explosive racial and religious tensions with no end in sight. No one's talking about peace talks with Osama but if you think you can just bomb Maddrassas' and Mosques left right and center with the best weapons money can buy won't encourage disenfranchised angry Muslims to follow any insane means for power then once again you're much more naive than I thought possible.

We need to provide secular education funding to the Middle East instead of propping up dictators who we used to support but did us wrong then suddenly is our friends again for strategic reasons. We need to provide economic opportunities, real ones not just Sultans and Princes reaping oil riches on the backs of the working person, and end this imperialistic outlook once and for all.

So sorry, if that doesn't fit into your bomb first, wreak havoc, and wonder why they hate us later act.
 
mr_sniffles:
Romanoffia:
Hitler trampled all over Europe in WWII. Was it wrong for his victim nations to use violence (their own military) to defend themselves? This attitude that it is wrong to defend one's self or to exterminate terrorists and thugs is utterly inane and uninformed to the point of being insane.

What the touchy-feely lefty-liberal types fail to see is that if you don't defend yourself against terrorists and dictatorial thugs, or you let dictatorial thugs like Saddam go their merry way gassing and murdering people, you are just inviting them to continue.
Click to expand...
And Hitler took power how? A little thing like WWI and the Treaty of Versailles had nothing to do with it?
Click to expand...
So, essentially, you are blaming Hitler on the French, or worse yet, excusing Hitler because somehow what he did was someone else's fault?

Hitler acted as an aggressor not only against his own nation, but against his neighbors. Saddam Hussein did exactly the same thing. What the bloddy Frogs pulled on Germany with the Versailles Treaty is no justification for Hitler and Germany's reaction. And in all reality, Germany got what it deserved in WWI. So did the Frogs. Certainly the Versailles Treaty indirectly resulted in WWII, but it had nothing to do with Hitle's attempt to turn millions of people into an atlernative fuel source, lampshades, landfill and bars of soap.

And I get so damned tired about the constant blathering that "Saddam Hussein never had WMDs". What did he do to the Kurds? Eat a lot of beans and fart in their general direction?

"Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness. We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love...Our aim must never be to defeat or humiliate [sic] man." Martin Luther King Jr
Click to expand...

I fail to see the relevance. I susppose the world should have just sat by and let mass murder continue? I suppose than we should have let Hitler take over the world because defending ourselves against terrorist thugs is somehow unjustified because self-defense means the use of violence? You have completely mis-applied MLKs context. I'm sure that MLK woulnd't have invited Saddam or Hitler in for Sunday Dinner, would he?

As for the war on terror, you can't win it by military means whatsoever. The Middle East proves that just fine, you're only perpetuating a culture of fear in a cruel game of shot for shot except instead of a sore arm you have a big pile of dead bodies coupled with explosive racial and religious tensions with no end in sight. No one's talking about peace talks with Osama but if you think you can just bomb Maddrassas' and Mosques left right and center with the best weapons money can buy won't encourage disenfranchised angry Muslims to follow any insane means for power then once again you're much more naive than I thought possible.
Click to expand...

You sure as hell can win it by military means. You just have to have the willpower to bring the fight to your enemy instead of sitting around group-hugging and singing 'Kum by yah" waiting for the enemy to come to you. The main problem with Iraq is that Iraq wasn't reduced to rubble like Germany was during WWII. If there was ever one mistake with the strategy in Iraq it was that we didn't utterly smash the whole damned country to the point that the inhabitants had absolutely no will to continue any kind of resistance whatsoever.

And never mind the "disenfranchised" Muslims. What about the 3000 or so Americans and countless others that were 'disenfranchised' from the ranks of the living by I Muslim terrorists? But regardless of whether the terrorists are Muslims or tree-worshippers or whatever, terrorists who strap bombs to their own children, use poison gas against unarmed civilians, need to be exterminated. They need to be exterminated because the only thing that will stop fanatical terrorists is to kill then before they kill us. I think that's clearly evident by the fact that they are willing to blow themselves up just to kill inocents. Talking to them and reasoning with them doesn't work. Killing the terrorists does work.

You may also notice that suicide bombings are almost non-existant in Iraq and become even less common as time goes on. You know why? Because the terrorists are running out of idiots who are willing to blow themselves up - and they are beginning to lose the will-power to continue terrorist attacks.

Frankly, I think that the Shiites are quite happy to have had Saddam do a rope dance. Mark my words, the terrorist idiot fringe of so-called 'disenfranchised' Muslims (who, incidentally are disenfranchised by other Muslims, not anyone else) are loosing steam and will eventually vanish into oblivion in Iraq in the very near future.

We need to provide secular education funding to the Middle East instead of propping up dictators who we used to support but did us wrong then suddenly is our friends again for strategic reasons. We need to provide economic opportunities, real ones not just Sultans and Princes reaping oil riches on the backs of the working person, and end this imperialistic outlook once and for all.

So sorry, if that doesn't fit into your bomb first, wreak havoc, and wonder why they hate us later act.
Click to expand...

Secular education isn't going to fly in the Middle East, especially not with the rule of Islamic Law dictating the daily functions of every aspect of life in Muslim countries.

The Middle East is never going to amount to anything ecomomically or otherwise while the nations there, mostly Islamic, continue to tolerate extremist religious fundamentalist violent lunatics, secular or otherwise. We don't need to provide 'them' with anything. They need to provide for themselves and they aren't going to do that unless they suddenly decide to act like civilized human beings instead of jumping around in the streets for joy at the murder of 'infidels'.

The only people that can change a violent, fundamentally ignorant mindset in those countries are the people who live there.

And as far as imperialistic outlooks go - take a look at Iran and the rest of the 'Muslim' world. You have that nutcase in Iran who wants to exterminate everyone in the world who isn't a Muslim because somehow his and his nation's 'religious' beliefs demand the extermination of everyone who isn't a Muslim. How the hell do you reason with people with that kind of mindset? The answer is that you can't. If you think you can reason with extremist elements, you're a fool.

That said, I can't even fathom how an insolent and insane minority of Islamic Extremists have been permitted by their own culture and religion to totally sieze control of a whole religion. I have no doubt that the vast majority of Muslims in the world are abhored by the acts of terrorism committed in the name of their religion. My only question is why don't they stand up and deal with those people who give their religion a bad name?

If the Islamic World had half a brain about it all they would be champing at the bit to smash Iraq and wipe out the extremists in their own midst. Unless they choose to do exactly that the Islamic World will be eternally sentenced to a circle of violence without end.
 
I'd have expected Saddam's family in Tikrit to be upset that he was executed!! I also expected OPArsenal to post something so flimsy from Al Jazeera!!

The Iraqi refugees making their home in my state were celebrating in the streets at the news of the death of Saddam!! Many of them had lost family to his regime!!

I'd say on an overall assessment Iraqis are happy that Saddam is out of the picture permanently!!
 
Saddam got what he deserved, he killed thousands of innocent men, women and children whilst he was in power and it is only right that he had the same fate, it was only mercy that he was not hanged and not handed over to the Kurds of Shia who would have tortured him to death using just about every horrific method ever invented. The reasons for the US, British and other coalition forces invasion of Iraq is immaterial, Saddam was a brutal dictator and the large majority of Iraq and the rest of the world are glad to see him gone.
 
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'?

Too bad they didn't use piano wire instead of rope on Saddam. :bat:

Thinking about it again, they should have drawn and quartered the M************. :bat:
 
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...
 
But whatever, i'm probably just some touhy feely lieberal (as evidenced by my user name which is totally the truth) who supports terrorists because I don't believe killing a human being, no matter how despicable, is right.
Click to expand...
~DD

Did you read what you said? You

1-support terrorists
2-terrorists bomb and behead innocent civilians
(Daniel Pearl?? anyone?)
3-you are calling Soldiers worse than their vile wahabbi scum.

democratic ass indeed.

Justice was done...even though I feel Juries are the most supreme way to render guilt, not bribed judges. It's wrong to hate...but it is pretty darn hard. It may be un-Christian to want to kill someone, but I believe it is very Christian to rejoice at the triumph of good over evil and work to see it happen.
 
Hahaha, wow F&P, and here I thought you had become smarter since I first laid eyes on a post of yours. Apparently sarcasm, as the entire section you quoted (minus the part about killing being despicable), is beyond your ability to grasp. I was putting out the argument which a lot of conservatives counter with to anyone who disagrees with their world view. That my disagreement gives comfort to and aids terrorists. And is a disservice to our Soldiers as evidenced by:

you are calling Soldiers worse than their vile wahabbi scum.
Click to expand...

Which is mildly amusing because for one I said no such thing and I only mentioned the current number of US soldier deaths in this war, nothing about them being scum. Both of my parents served for 20 years in the Navy, with them on constant deployment, one after the other 6 months at a time, for which I personally received a signed commendation from the Secretary of the Navy for the hardships I faced as the son of soldiers protecting this country. I also had a choice between service and college, because I have a strong desire to serve my country and continue my parents' legacy, but I chose college (at the insistence of my parents actually) with the option to serve later, probably in the National Guard. So I think the insult to the troops that you conjured out of thin air from my posts is unfair and particularly insulting to me. Hence my rather harsh questioning of your intelligence.

Justice was done...even though I feel Juries are the most supreme way to render guilt, not bribed judges. It's wrong to hate...but it is pretty darn hard. It may be un-Christian to want to kill someone, but I believe it is very Christian to rejoice at the triumph of good over evil and work to see it happen.
Click to expand...

You need to read the teachings of Christ a little harder, and maybe sleep with the Bible under your pillow so maybe some of it sinks in. It is unchristian to want to kill someone or to kill them. Thou shall not kill. Not that this war really has any grounding in Christianity, nor the decisions made, which makes me wonder why you even brought it up.

What you seem to be implying is that killing is ok for the sake of good, but it begs the question, who determines good? The reason Saddam was hung is because he killed people, which is inherently wrong (perhaps the only absolutely objective moral) because all human life has intrinsic value. To kill him is a violation of that moral upon which he was tried and executed, and antithetical to Christ's teachings which you try to trumpet around in this thread.

And I didn't have to read what I said because I wrote it, ass.
 
sarcasm from a quick read is always difficult to pick up. My eyes missed the first three words...I need sleep. Intelligence has nothing to do with it but time an patience do heavily affect reading, but I do stand corrected.

However, the Bible I read says you shall not murder. There is a difference. Read through the first books, especially as Jacob takes the promised land. God orders him and the Jews to kill all those who are in the land, or drive them out. God does not contradict himself, only translators do.

As for the WMD arguement, I do wish the Administration had picked a better reason for the war. But a war can still be just even if it is not on the pre-emptive strike doctrine.
As for Jesus' teachings, you need not insult me there. On a person to person level, we should follow the sermon on the mount. However, when evil seems to reign, I believe it is our duty to squash it.

As for the whining about not taking out every evil dictator, well we can only do so much. Iraq is costing us hundreds of billions.

As for the Good Question, there is an absolute good and there is an absolute evil. Actions, depending on the circumstances, fall under either. I forgot exactly what Paul said on this issue, so I won;t try to make it up.
 
freedom and pride:
sarcasm from a quick read is always difficult to pick up. My eyes missed the first three words...I need sleep. Intelligence has nothing to do with it but time an patience do heavily affect reading, but I do stand corrected.

However, the Bible I read says you shall not murder. There is a difference. Read through the first books, especially as Jacob takes the promised land. God orders him and the Jews to kill all those who are in the land, or drive them out. God does not contradict himself, only translators do.

As for the WMD arguement, I do wish the Administration had picked a better reason for the war. But a war can still be just even if it is not on the pre-emptive strike doctrine.
As for Jesus' teachings, you need not insult me there. On a person to person level, we should follow the sermon on the mount. However, when evil seems to reign, I believe it is our duty to squash it.

As for the whining about not taking out every evil dictator, well we can only do so much. Iraq is costing us hundreds of billions.

As for the Good Question, there is an absolute good and there is an absolute evil. Actions, depending on the circumstances, fall under either. I forgot exactly what Paul said on this issue, so I won;t try to make it up.
Click to expand...
The commandments as I learned them said kill. Different branches of Christianity I guess, different bibles obviously.

Your division of the world into absolute good and absolute evil is too broad a brush to paint the world with. Manichaeism died out a long time ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top