Stop Saddam's Execution??

[jdinca]

You're inability to recall a fact, does not mean the fact does not exist.



This is just a pointer - I'm sure you can continue with more in depth research, if you are inclined.

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1043

Interestingly enough, what you are pointing to is the local/municipal elections held in '03. Sistani did have a problem with those but was in full support of national elections to elect the government, and had even issued a fatwa stating that voting in the election was everybodies religious duty. Hardly something you would expect from a man who felt the elections were fraudelent.

I'm sorry that you chose to only point to one side of the story. Your perspective would be better served if you chose a balanced approach when presenting your facts, even if you choose to draw different conclusions from them.

 

[MA-Caver]

Originally Posted by CoryKS
I don't think they are protesting his execution, and I don't think they are protesting the idea of execution. They are protesting the US, as they do in everything else. Your question mark after allies was appropriate.

By some accounts, Hussein is about twenty minutes from a short drop and a sudden stop.

You are making a very big assumption about an awful lot of people. It's insulting actually.

Tez, I don't see how I could've been insulting to the allies by placing a (??) there. That they're giving the U.S. flak about being supportive of the execution of a mass-murderer, tyrant and dictator has to give rise to the questionablity of their support to the U.S. in general. We helped a people who could not otherwise help themselves. Mass graves, mass executions, chemical warfare(which was banned after WWI !!) on an otherwise totally defenseless people (Kurds), harboring terrorists and so on. Did anyone do anything about it. The U.S. was the first to step in, true, the allies came in support... then (most of them) left shortly after, leaving us to "clean up the mess." Is it any wonder I put (??) after allies? By the way... I'm talking the whole of europe ... not just one country in particular... if whatever country is supportive of us by helping Iraq execute their biggest criminal ...then two pip-pips-hooray for them! Welcome to the right side of the fence!
At the moment I don't care about getting the neg rep for my earliest post/reply to this thread. I don't appreciate it being unidentified but that's another story... I stand by what I say as always... doesn't suit anyone? ... :idunno: not my problem.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Well hell, I'm not gonna lie and say everyone's behaved like angels. I want us out of there too.

I'd been on the fence for awhile, and up till very recently i did still support the war in Iraq.


This was mostly based on my belief that Saddam was a horrible genocidal leader who the Iraqi people needed to get rid of. Nothing grey-area about it. He was a bad guy and needed to leave. However, I just read last week that the Iraqi Gov't (for however much it can be called a government) has reached a "security agreement" with Iran.

IRAN.

Every day American soldiers die in the hopes that Iraq will become a free and modern democracy. They die for them and then the Iraqi's reach a security agreement with a leader who insults, berates, and challenges the US, UN, and NATO constantly.

I'm beginning to lose hope in these people. And by 'these people', I mean Iraq, Palestine, Iran, and Syria. The Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad just sent a letter to the US in which he said that he wanted the US "to promote and protect freedom and human dignity and integrity" and that "We all deplore injustice, the trampling of peoples' rights and the intimidation and humiliation of human beings". I want to laugh, but instead I'm shaking my head. Iran has a HORRIBLE human rights record and here they go talking about it like they're ****ing Ghandi. The Iraqi's fight amongst themselves constantly and blame the US for it. The Syrians bomb the lebanese promote terrorism and just plain make everything worse. The Palestinians say that they don't support terrorism but ELECT HAMAS IN A DEMOCRATIC ELECTION. That's the message of the Palestinians: We are terrorists, we elect terrorists, we say we want peace when we really just Israel reduced to rubble.

I have a message for the Palestinian, Syrian, and Iranian people: Israel is going to stay. They know how to act like civilized human beings. They OBEY peace agreements (at least until you **** it all up). Deal with it.

I want to have some hope in those countries, but I'm beginning to think that they don't deserve it. They don't deserve Americans dying for them when they seem bound and determined to make it their collective national pastime to throw it all to hell.

Seriously. I want someone to prove me wrong.


But for now ( and I'm gonna do it AGAIN on New Year's), I will take some small comfort that this execution, however much any group tries to whine and rules-lawyer around it, means just one thing:


That's one more monster gone.

 

[michaeledward]

Interestingly enough, what you are pointing to is the local/municipal elections held in '03. Sistani did have a problem with those but was in full support of national elections to elect the government, and had even issued a fatwa stating that voting in the election was everybodies religious duty. Hardly something you would expect from a man who felt the elections were fraudelent.

I'm sorry that you chose to only point to one side of the story. Your perspective would be better served if you chose a balanced approach when presenting your facts, even if you choose to draw different conclusions from them.

And where does the Grand Ayatollah stand today, concerning the governance of Iraq?

In '03 he disapproved. Several elections were held, with which he allowed his consent. And today, one of the 12 Grand Ayatollahs refuses to take any questions or provide any input the governance of Iraq. Like Pontius Pilate - he has washed his hands of the current regime in Iraq.

So, whether Sistani pronounced the elections fraudulent, or not, is irrelevant. The question we should be asking, is are those 8 million who you say voted, going to follow the government they voted for, or their religious leader


Lastly, facts need not be balanced. They must be recognized as facts. Then, we apply our cognitive powers to those facts to draw analysis.

And my analysis has been very good on much of this Iraq stuff. Many don't seem to like it, because they think I 'Hate Bush' or 'Hate America' or 'Want the Terrorists to Win'. But those emotional arguments don't change the facts. Regardless of where you interpret the balanced.

 

[Don Roley]

So, whether Sistani pronounced the elections fraudulent, or not, is irrelevant.

So why did you bring it up in post #10 when you wrote,

There are some - some that go by the title 'Grand Ayatollah' - that think all of the elections held in Iraq have been fraudulent,

I smell a thread drift away from the subject of Hussein's death and into yet another bashing of the enemy political party.

Sistani seems to be cooming around to the US side of things if recent reports in the IHT are any indication. But since he does not make many public statements, it is hard to say. And, of course, Sistani is the subject for another thread. But he certainly did not say that any of the elections held so far were fraudulant.

 

[heretic888]

On an international level when we are dealing with terrorists and brutal dictators where there is NO QUESTION that these people are guilty, I am not opposed to doing away with them. In fact, anything I can do to help. I see this more as demon slaying rather then killing a person.

And that really is the point, isn't it??

To support things like state-sanctioned murder, it is essential to erect fantasies of dehumanization and emotional separation to psychologically rationalize what is wholesale brutality (i.e., the methodical and deliberate killing of a defenseless human being). Ergo, rhetoric like "demon", "monster", "scum", and so on are constructed to do everything possible to psychologically distance oneself from the target. Because the truth of the behavior --- the murder of another human being --- is simply too distressing, it becomes necessary to construct lies to appease the fragile psyche.

It should be pointed out that similar psychological processes are intiated by both victimizers and victims in conflict situations. They distance themselves from the Other and find ways to justify their actions.

As for me, I take the wholesale jubilation at the murder of another human being --- no matter who he or she is --- as proof positive that we are decades, perhaps centuries, from every winning the "War on Terror".

But by all means, drink to one's satisfied sense of bloodlust. I've always preferred sobriety myself.

Laterz.

 

[Cruentus]

And that really is the point, isn't it??

To support things like state-sanctioned murder, it is essential to erect fantasies of dehumanization and emotional separation to psychologically rationalize what is wholesale brutality (i.e., the methodical and deliberate killing of a defenseless human being). Ergo, rhetoric like "demon", "monster", "scum", and so on are constructed to do everything possible to psychologically distance oneself from the target. Because the truth of the behavior --- the murder of another human being --- is simply too distressing, it becomes necessary to construct lies to appease the fragile psyche.

It should be pointed out that similar psychological processes are intiated by both victimizers and victims in conflict situations. They distance themselves from the Other and find ways to justify their actions.

As for me, I take the wholesale jubilation at the murder of another human being --- no matter who he or she is --- as proof positive that we are decades, perhaps centuries, from every winning the "War on Terror".

But by all means, drink to one's satisfied sense of bloodlust. I've always preferred sobriety myself.

Laterz.

Sure, equate people like Saddam with other productive members of society to try to prove your (apparent) stance against putting him to death. Yes, many good people out there don't want to realize that another human being could be responsible for things like mass genocide. But, that's great... we can simply say that those people are just like Hussien, Hitler, or whomever else we please to make our point. That sure seems like the logical thing to do.

I, however, do not need to distance myself from the enemy. I could meet Hussein's grandma, cousins, and grandkids and have them tell me how "human" he is, and my opinion wouldn't change. Someone directly responsible for rape and torture rooms, mass genocide, and other fun atrocities simply need to be removed from this world. And on the rare occasion that this occurs, then I believe that it calls for a celebration.

Here, here... I will drink to that, while other nutless geeks will be soberly reading Ken Wilber and trying to construct various new ways to feel philosophically superior to ones fellow man.

Laterz...

 

[bydand]

And that really is the point, isn't it??

To support things like state-sanctioned murder, it is essential to erect fantasies of dehumanization and emotional separation to psychologically rationalize what is wholesale brutality (i.e., the methodical and deliberate killing of a defenseless human being). Ergo, rhetoric like "demon", "monster", "scum", and so on are constructed to do everything possible to psychologically distance oneself from the target. Because the truth of the behavior --- the murder of another human being --- is simply too distressing, it becomes necessary to construct lies to appease the fragile psyche.

It should be pointed out that similar psychological processes are intiated by both victimizers and victims in conflict situations. They distance themselves from the Other and find ways to justify their actions.

As for me, I take the wholesale jubilation at the murder of another human being --- no matter who he or she is --- as proof positive that we are decades, perhaps centuries, from every winning the "War on Terror".

But by all means, drink to one's satisfied sense of bloodlust. I've always preferred sobriety myself.

Laterz.

Yes Sadam probably enjoyed the smell of a fresh morning after a rain, or a fine cigar, even a well cooked meal followed by a fine wine, then the comfort of a loved one. He was a Father, somebodys son, everything that I am, but, he was even more, he was a mass murderer as well as being everything that makes us human. If they needed somebody to attatch the electrodes, drop the posion gas pellet, push drugs through an IV, squeeze the trigger, pull the lever, tighten the noose, or whatever means the courts had decided to execute him, they could have given me a call, and found a helping hand. I would have no problem ending the life (Go ahead and call it state sactioned murder, doesn't faze me in the least) of a human like him. Does that make me cold blooded? to some probably, but ask anybody who really knows me and you would find a warm, welcoming individual who just believes that giving a man like this better living conditions and better health care than hard working, honest individuals is more appalling than the distastefull job of executing them and getting the job over with and the expense done with.

The Human Being formally known as living breathing Sadam is dead, killed at the hands of fellow human beings that have a sense of right and wrong. Cheers :cheers:

 

[Mariachi Joe]

guess karma finally caught up to old Sadam

 

[Shark]

Europeans are generally against the death penalty, that is a matter of choice.
Suddam was a tyrant no doubt about it and murdered thousands but could hardly be compared to Hitler or especially Stalin.
Was he such a threat to USA? Weapons of mass distruction??
Iraq is a long way from America but unfortunately more and more American families have news of their sons and daughters deaths in Iraq.
Are the Iraqi people better off than before? Wasnt a great place before but looks worse and more dangerous now. Are they grateful for being "saved"? Im not sure.
Is America better off and safer?? I am sure they have done well from getting control of that oil but at what cost?
Since the war on terror is USA safer?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and influenced by media in their own county but i think that the invasion of Iraq has not been a great success for anyone.

 

[ed-swckf]

You are making a very big assumption about an awful lot of people.It's insulting actually.

This is true, it certainly doesn't accurately describe what i've experienced.

 

[Don Roley]

Suddam was a tyrant no doubt about it and murdered thousands but could hardly be compared to Hitler or especially Stalin.
Was he such a threat to USA? Weapons of mass distruction??

He was not a Stalin merely because he was not compent enough.

And where were the WMDs that the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden had? Where is the anthrax that Hussein said he had, but failed to account for? After an anthrax attack and scores of searches in Iraq, we still do not know what he did with the stuff he admited he had at one point.

The danger of a person like Hussein was that he saw what a group of criminals in a pariah country like Afghanistan could do, and how whoever caused all the panic the anthrax attacks got away with it clean (assuming he had nothing to do with it) and you can be pretty damn sure that he would be thinking about how he could do the same thing.

Remember, this is a guy who twice tried to go toe to toe with the US military, tried to run a secret bio weapons program while inspectors were in his country (actually, it was blown by his son- in- law and not the inspectors) and tried to kill an ex- president of the US..

And you expect him to not try something of the same sort, and maybe get lucky?

I am glad he is dead just so we do not have to deal with his efforts to cause that type of damage on us. He would have tried, I am sure of that. Better he is dead that we have to deal with him.

 

[michaeledward]

I will re-iterate two points.

When the History of our time is written, it will be noted that Saddam Hussein was put to death for the killing of 148 men in the village of Dujil, in retribution for an assassination attempt. Rape Rooms, Mass Murder, Torture Rooms, and Mass Genoncide (is that redundant?) have not been proved. And will now never be proved in any sense of a 'fair trial' - as the accused can not stand before the court.

And, to continuely references the 'people of Iraq' and the 'Courts' of Iraq assumes as a foregone conclusion that this government of Iraq evolves into the eventual government of Iraq. If the country of Iraq evolves, and devolves, and eventually becomes something else; this verdict will be seen, through the lens of history, as Victor's Justice.

EDIT
I will amend and extend my remarks ...

This article is a bit spooky. http://blogs.abcnews.com/bizarrebazaar/2006/12/saddams_hanging.html#comment-27102907

There are five men in black face masks who are visible on the gallows platform around Saddam, acting as guards. As they guide him towards the trap door and put the noose over his head, they start chanting religious slogans with the names of Moqtada al Sadr (the head of the Mahdi army, accused of organizing death squads against Sunnis) and Baqr al Sadr (the father-in-law of Moqtada). Saddam, a Sunni, is outraged at this last-minute provocation, and tells them to “go to hell.”

How many times, so far, has the United States Military been in armed conflict with Moqtada al Sadr? By the way, his father also had the first name of 'Grand Ayatollah'.

END EDIT

 

[Don Roley]

When the History of our time is written, it will be noted that Saddam Hussein was put to death for the killing of 148 men in the village of Dujil, in retribution for an assassination attempt. Rape Rooms, Mass Murder, Torture Rooms, and Mass Genoncide (is that redundant?) have not been proved. And will now never be proved in any sense of a 'fair trial' - as the accused can not stand before the court.

Just recently, we had a conference that debated if the holocaust in fact ever happened. There are still folks that think the moon shots were faked. You can't expect everyone to agree to even the most obvious facts.

But I feel justified in saying, along with a great number of logical folks, that Hussein did in fact gas innocent women and children and other vile acts.

And I am glad he is dead because of it. I will not apologize for that, nor feel guilt, or even feel any less than those that try to argue otherwise.

I am glad this ****er is dead!!!!

 

[heretic888]

Sure, equate people like Saddam with other productive members of society to try to prove your (apparent) stance against putting him to death. Yes, many good people out there don't want to realize that another human being could be responsible for things like mass genocide. But, that's great... we can simply say that those people are just like Hussien, Hitler, or whomever else we please to make our point. That sure seems like the logical thing to do.

I don't recall equating Saddam Hussein with "other productive members of society", but thanks for the non-sequiter. I suppose such amorally opportunistic Straw Man arguments are necessary here, since the only thing justifying one's position is emotionally-fed bloodlust and vengeance. It is Freudian sublimation at its finest.

I, however, do not need to distance myself from the enemy.

Tell yourself whatever lies you need to in order to protect your psyche. The fact you referred to this as "demon slaying" says otherwise. As I said before, it is important to erect such dehumanization fantasies to escape from the truth of the matter.

This, by the way, is a common propaganda campaign during wartime, when it becomes necessary to transform the enemy into the Other.

Here, here... I will drink to that, while other nutless geeks will be soberly reading Ken Wilber and trying to construct various new ways to feel philosophically superior to ones fellow man.

One is reminded of the Biblical verse: Love thine enemy.... unless you really, really don't like him, then it's okay.

Wait, that's not right....

 

[heretic888]

Yes Sadam probably enjoyed the smell of a fresh morning after a rain, or a fine cigar, even a well cooked meal followed by a fine wine, then the comfort of a loved one. He was a Father, somebodys son, everything that I am, but, he was even more, he was a mass murderer as well as being everything that makes us human. If they needed somebody to attatch the electrodes, drop the posion gas pellet, push drugs through an IV, squeeze the trigger, pull the lever, tighten the noose, or whatever means the courts had decided to execute him, they could have given me a call, and found a helping hand. I would have no problem ending the life (Go ahead and call it state sactioned murder, doesn't faze me in the least) of a human like him. Does that make me cold blooded? to some probably, but ask anybody who really knows me and you would find a warm, welcoming individual who just believes that giving a man like this better living conditions and better health care than hard working, honest individuals is more appalling than the distastefull job of executing them and getting the job over with and the expense done with.

The Human Being formally known as living breathing Sadam is dead, killed at the hands of fellow human beings that have a sense of right and wrong. Cheers :cheers:

Hey, man, whatever lies you need to tell yourself. I realize the clarion call of the almighty Ego is more persuasive than moral altruism, so I can't really say I'm surprised.

But, like, whatever.

 

[bydand]

Hey, man, whatever lies you need to tell yourself. I realize the clarion call of the almighty Ego is more persuasive than moral altruism, so I can't really say I'm surprised.

But, like, whatever.

Ego? If you had even a miniscule knowledge of me personally, you would know how off that statement is. Being morally altruistic is not just the whole wishy-washy stand most liberal proponents would have you believe. Happy, happy, joy, joy doesn't work in the world. I wish it did much more than it does, but the simple fact is that it does not. Man by our nature is not a creature that embraces the whole moral altrusim ideal I'm afraid. Cutting the bad out of society isn't egoism, it is taking a threat out of the picture so they cannot harm others. Locking them up for life is one option, not the one that the people who found Saddam quilty would be best for the situation or the culture. You pull the whole altruism/egoism argument out and I find it quite funny that you are using an egoism type argument to "prove" how altruistic you are. Kind of ironic don't you think. Oh yeah, I'm just a "dumb" Electrician and shouldn't know the difference. wrong again, just because a person doesn't spout all the big words all the time doesn't mean they don't know how to, just that they choose not to.

 

[heretic888]

Ego? If you had even a miniscule knowledge of me personally, you would know how off that statement is. Being morally altruistic is not just the whole wishy-washy stand most liberal proponents would have you believe. Happy, happy, joy, joy doesn't work in the world. I wish it did much more than it does, but the simple fact is that it does not. Man by our nature is not a creature that embraces the whole moral altrusim ideal I'm afraid. Cutting the bad out of society isn't egoism, it is taking a threat out of the picture so they cannot harm others. Locking them up for life is one option, not the one that the people who found Saddam quilty would be best for the situation or the culture. You pull the whole altruism/egoism argument out and I find it quite funny that you are using an egoism type argument to "prove" how altruistic you are. Kind of ironic don't you think. Oh yeah, I'm just a "dumb" Electrician and shouldn't know the difference. wrong again, just because a person doesn't spout all the big words all the time doesn't mean they don't know how to, just that they choose not to.

I apologize for my previous comments. While I stand by my position, there was no reason for this to devolve into ad hominems.

I suppose that's what I get for posting before breakfast.

 

[bydand]

No problems Heretic, I actually enjoy reading your responses 90% of the time because it shows the other side of the coin I am looking at. Having a picture of both sides of an issue is what is needed for an informed decision on which side to hold onto. The post I responded to fell into the other 10% I'm afraid . Happens to everybody. Have a good one today and it looks like this thread is about yet another topic we will have to respectfully disagree on.

 

[Kacey]

Mod. Note.
Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-Karen Cohn
-MT Moderator-