Stop Saddam's Execution??

[Don Roley]

But, rather than his death, lets look at what most likely would be if he had been allowed to live:
Without the US invasion, the most probable reality is one where Saddam and his even more evil sons were still alive, still in power and still thumbing their noses at the US.

Well, we can be pretty sure that three members of the UN security council would have dropped all sanctions against him and set him back up in business. They would have done so because they would have profited from it. In fact, the sanctions were already full of holes and many people were dirty with his money.

At that point, can anyone name me something that he could not do that Osama Bin Laden could? Can anyone name me something that Hussein did not have that Osama did? Do you think that Osama is a threat? If Osama offered to stop attacking us, should we take his word?

As I see it, Hussein had more money and the resources of a nation at his disposal. Lets not forget he had powerful members of the security council running cover for him. He also showed a history of running bio- weapon programs involving things like smallpox. The second program he ran right under the noses of the UN inspectors and was only found out when his son- in- law defected.

We can't say with certainty what he would have done. Maybe he would not have noticed that whoever attacked the US with anthrax caused a lot of problems and got away without anyone knowing who did it. Despite the fact that he thought he could take on the US twice toe to toe, tried to kill a president and ran bio- weapon programs he would not have tried to do so himself. And even if he did, maybe we would have caught him despite our failure to catch the anthrax attacks and the 9-11 attacks. Maybe he would not have been able to move around smallpox in diplomatic bags and pay off people to spread something like that in America. But we also don't know if Osama would fail to keep his word if he promised not to attack us anymore. If you think Osama is a threat and should be pursued even with his lack of resources and such compared to Hussein, I do not see how you can think that Hussein was not.

But now we know Hussein is not a threat. Because he is worm food.

Put another way, man will not be truly civilized until the day that he can proclaim "I will not kill", and hold himself to it. As a race, not just an individual.

I see that you have taken as an absolute that there shall be no killings, unless in self defense, etc. Why? What is so bad about killing.

I am not joking around. I am asking you to exam your beliefs and see if they are all built on solid ground.

I have heard it said that we should not lower ourselves to the level of a murderer by killing him. Well, since holding someone against their will is a bad thing, does that mean we should not lower ourselves to the level of a kidnapper by throwing them in jail? Why is holding someone against their will a good thing if they did it but killing a person is bad if they did it?

My view of things is that no one should do something to another that they would not want done to themselves. And if they choose to do so, then their rights are then void on that matter. So I have no right to go in and take something by force from another. But if someone does that, the police have the right to make them (i.e. by force) give it back without them lowering themselves to the same level.

Note that I am not even making a moral judgement on the acts. I am merely saying that if you want to exist with others, you have to deal with them as you would want to be treated in turn. If you do not, then no one else is obligated to respect the rights you ignore in others.

Hussein ordered a entire village killed, including the two year old I mentioned, because someone from it mad him mad. So I do not see the problem with an Iraqi judge giving the same type of order to have him hanged.

 

[Cruentus]

Paul,
An American President oversaw the Trail of Tears, Wounded Knee, and the destruction of tens of thousands of Native lives and families and cultures, genocide if you will.
An American President oversaw the non-criminal imprisionment of thousands of US citizens due to their ethnic background.
An American President led this nation into an illegal war on false pretenses and disinformation, has overseen the imprisonment without charge of several thousand individuals, numerous of whom have been unlawfully tortured in secret prisons around the world.

So, yes I do see reasonable comparisons to another now dead madman who maintained secret prisons, secret police and other crimes. The difference is, one of these lunatics is now dead, and being laughed at as he dies on a deplorable video clip. The other pardoned himself last fall.

O.K….I’ll entertain this due to special requests, and then I am probably done. I’m sure this will be futile, as this discussion is already in the *******.
So why don’t we simply ask ourselves a few questions:

• Name one U.S. president who started a career by murdering political opponents to help his rise to power.
• Name one U.S. president who created a police state driven by sham trials, executions, assassinations, and intimidation.
• Name one U.S. president who would murder any who would oppose or challenge his rule, as well as sentencing their families and children to torture and death.
• Name one U.S. president who would bomb his own citizens of a particular ethnic group with chemical agents, killing over 5,000 of them, and severely disabling 10,000 of them.
• Name one U.S. president who would have actual rooms designated to rape and torture 1,000’s of women and children during his reign of power.
• Name one U.S. president who would knowingly allow the military to use it’s own citizens as a shield during a war.

Well, I know we can name one individual responsible for ALL of the above, can’t we?

Yes, we all understand that American’s have been responsible for atrocities as well; and perhaps we have had presidents in the past who should have been held accountable for certain things. But, it is sad to say that most of the things that American history has been guilty of can’t be blamed on any one person, but was more of a cultural and collective problem (like Slavery, for example) that fits in a particular historical context. There is no president that has ever come close to the same level of wickedness or individual blame as Saddam.

But, you see, you all know all of this. I don’t have to explain it to most of you, which is why I say that this discussion has gone into the toilet. Because you either are incredibly stupid or ignorant of history, or you know that Saddam and (insert favorite U.S. president to hate here) aren’t even in the same category.

And since you know this, then that means that you are equating the two to prove a point. Most likely, you are trying to level the playing field, blurring the lines and degrees in which individuals have been responsible for social ills so that we can say that NO ONE is guilty enough or bad enough to receive the death penalty. As if, say for example, Presidents Bush’s decision to invade Iraq is the same as having family members of political opponents raped, tortured, and killed, or using chemical weapons on his own people. You see? Because somehow if we put all social ills and crimes at the same level, then somehow that will justify our position as to why we think that Saddam Hussein should be alive right now.

Well, I think that is crap. No, I don’t think you all are really that stupid. I just think that you are being intellectually dishonest, and should be ashamed of yourselves.

But that’s O.K. if you’re not; I’ll just be ashamed for you, I guess.

But don’t let that stand in the way.

Carry on.

 

[Hand Sword]

:mrtoilet: Since we are in the toilett, Someone wanna pull the chain please?

That way we can get back to heated, but, serious discussion, such as, coming up with real policy/ies concerning what to do now. If we disagree with the commander in chief's policy, then we must have a specific counter to it, right? It's not enough to scream about not liking W, and hating his policies, if you're in a real discussion.

 

[Lisa]

ATTENTION ALL MEMBERS:

PLEASE KEEP THE CONVERSATION POLITE AND RESPECTFUL. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO USE THE IGNORE FEATURE TO IGNORE THOSE MEMBERS WHOSE POSTS YOU DISAGREE WITH, IT CAN BE FOUND AT THE BOTTOM OF THEIR PROFILE.

THANK YOU.

Lisa Deneka
MartialTalk Super Moderator

 

[shesulsa]

O.K….I’ll entertain this due to special requests, and then I am probably done. I’m sure this will be futile, as this discussion is already in the ****ter.
So why don’t we simply ask ourselves a few questions:

• Name one U.S. president who started a career by murdering political opponents to help his rise to power.
• Name one U.S. president who created a police state driven by sham trials, executions, assassinations, and intimidation.
• Name one U.S. president who would murder any who would oppose or challenge his rule, as well as sentencing their families and children to torture and death.
• Name one U.S. president who would bomb his own citizens of a particular ethnic group with chemical agents, killing over 5,000 of them, and severely disabling 10,000 of them.
• Name one U.S. president who would have actual rooms designated to rape and torture 1,000’s of women and children during his reign of power.
• Name one U.S. president who would knowingly allow the military to use it’s own citizens as a shield during a war.

Well, I know we can name one individual responsible for ALL of the above, can’t we?

Yes, we all understand that American’s have been responsible for atrocities as well; and perhaps we have had presidents in the past who should have been held accountable for certain things. But, it is sad to say that most of the things that American history has been guilty of can’t be blamed on any one person, but was more of a cultural and collective problem (like Slavery, for example) that fits in a particular historical context. There is no president that has ever come close to the same level of wickedness or individual blame as Saddam.

But, you see, you all know all of this. I don’t have to explain it to most of you, which is why I say that this discussion has gone into the toilet. Because you either are incredibly stupid or ignorant of history, or you know that Saddam and (insert favorite U.S. president to hate here) aren’t even in the same category.

And since you know this, then that means that you are equating the two to prove a point. Most likely, you are trying to level the playing field, blurring the lines and degrees in which individuals have been responsible for social ills so that we can say that NO ONE is guilty enough or bad enough to receive the death penalty. As if, say for example, Presidents Bush’s decision to invade Iraq is the same as having family members of political opponents raped, tortured, and killed, or using chemical weapons on his own people. You see? Because somehow if we put all social ills and crimes at the same level, then somehow that will justify our position as to why we think that Saddam Hussein should be alive right now.

Well, I think that is crap. No, I don’t think you all are really that stupid. I just think that you are being intellectually dishonest, and should be ashamed of yourselves.

But that’s O.K. if you’re not; I’ll just be ashamed for you, I guess.

But don’t let that stand in the way.

Carry on.

I have to say when people attempt to flex their argumentative muscles (example above) I become amused at catch-phrases such as "intellectual dishonesty" because one is compelled to ask oneself 'what does this really mean?'

One can only assume that a user of this phrase believes the recipient to be smarter than being revealed or, perhaps, to use only select pieces of his/her intelligence to argue a false point towards an alternative agenda.

So I challenge you then, Paul, when you use this term towards another user here and when speaking of the herald office of the presidency of the United States to consider men like Lyndon B. Johnson (who is more than suspected of arranging the assassination of his predecessor as well as putting us in Vietnam), Richard M. Nixon.

Here are the questions you asked:

• Name one U.S. president who started a career by murdering political opponents to help his rise to power.

George Washington ... but that was okay, because it bought our freedom.

• Name one U.S. president who created a police state driven by sham trials, executions, assassinations, and intimidation.

Arguably George H. W. Bush

• Name one U.S. president who would murder any who would oppose or challenge his rule, as well as sentencing their families and children to torture and death.

see above

• Name one U.S. president who would bomb his own citizens of a particular ethnic group with chemical agents, killing over 5,000 of them, and severely disabling 10,000 of them.

Any and all US presidents who have opposed environmental policy, allowing the continuous dumping of toxic waste in fields, rivers and streams near or flowing towards a drinking water or food farming source, developers to build on property previously dumped on in the interest of commerce, and allows experimental vaccines to be injected into the men and women giving their lives to protect us - our armed forces.

• Name one U.S. president who would have actual rooms designated to rape and torture 1,000’s of women and children during his reign of power.

Every president who has ever presided during war time.

• Name one U.S. president who would knowingly allow the military to use it’s own citizens as a shield during a war.

See above.

So when you speak of intellectual dishonesty, I have to ask you ... where are your sources of information? Do you rely only on US broadcasts and major media? Are you aware that the US political news going to Australia is FAR FAR different from what you will EVER see from a major media source in the states? Talk to a newsperson from a major media source who does the US news to other countries and ask them how different the outgoing information is and then talk to me about intellectual dishonesty or liberal media. Get a paper from Singapore translated to English for you - especially the articles on US politics - and talk to me about intellectual dishonesty and free press. Go and visit *ANY* First Nations reserve property (even the ones with the casinos) and tell me our presidents don't carry on a torturous, murderous tradition in how we treat non-whites who were here before us and talk to me about intellectual dishonesty.

It's not the discussion that's in the toilet, my friend. That commode is perpetually backed up with apathy, a blind faith in the people who run this country, and MISPLACED PATRIOTISM.

Oh, and let me define that for you:

Misplaced patriotism is rallying behind the Chief just because he holds that title. It is believing so blindly in your nation to be INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST enough to say there is little wrong with it, that the men who have run this nation into the ground are doing it far more good than we can even imagine.

Four more years ... oo-rah this.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Since the United States is now in the business of nation building and taking out "really bad mans" (quote GW Bush), who is next?

Will we now move on toward Syria where the mythical WMD are rumored to have gone, since destroying those was our supposed purpose for this pointless war?

Will we turn our attention to North Korea, where poverty is king and value of life is non existent? Thats another nation where the bastard at the top dines on fine wine while his people drink dirty water. They have nukes you see, far more dangerous than gas.

How about Iran, which continues to thumb it's nose at UN directives ordering it to cease its own nuclular (GW Bush) program. Remember, we invaded Iraq because Saddam was ignoring UN orders. Seems fair to do it again, especially since we have the army already there.

What about going back to Somalia and taking out those warlords. People live in poverty, nations a gangland, and they even have pirates targeting cruise ships.

The point is, there are easily a dozen nations out there with worse leaders than Saddam, who are in more serious need "nation building", who are more serious threats to the US, than Iraq under Saddam ever was.

With all the effort wasted on Iraq, Osama continues to oversee training camps and arm and outfit new terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. His network, rather than be destroyed, has gone independent making for a harder not easier situation.

Regarding Pauls commentary, Saddam wasn't found guilty of anything other than ordering the killings. The rest of the accusations weren't run through this time, in fact he's still on trial for the Anfal military campaign against Iraqi Kurds in the late 1980s where at least 180,000 people were reportedly killed in the campaign. There are also the numerous other more hideous things that Paul mentioned.

Don asked "I see that you have taken as an absolute that there shall be no killings, unless in self defense, etc. Why? What is so bad about killing."

Everything. You can not restore that which you take. Almost every religion in the world has a rule forbidding it. It is simply put, wrong.

That said, it is sometimes justified. In times of war people will die. It is still wrong though.

The argument "Well, he might have come back and done us harm" is true.
The same was said when SS troops executed 100+ US POWs in the Malmedy and Wereth massacres, or the US 3rd armies disposal of a large number of German officers who were "shot while escaping". There is a difference between taking out an enemy commander in battle, and executing him after the war is over. (Remember, it's over, "mission accomplished" - GW Bush)

What does Islamic law say?
http://www.islam-usa.com/e106.htm
And yes, this will refute some of my convictions, but it also outlines several areas where the Saddam situation was done wrong.

Saddams trial was riddled with issues, in defiance of current Iraqi law.
"The judge who did take over often allowed the prosecutor to bring forth evidence and witnesses without first showing them to defense lawyers, a brazen violation of fair play. "There was a lack of impartiality and judicial temperament" from the judge, said Michael Scharf, an American law professor who advised the Iraqi tribunal during the trial." - Star Bulletin

Based on how his execution went, it also violated their law, in that it was private, he was jeered, and he was not allowed to finish his final prayer.
"Once the capital punishment has been prescribed by the court, it should be carried out in a public ceremony. The purpose is to give a lesson to the witnesses present as a reminder and as a deterrent. There should be no public cheering or shouts of protest.

The emphasis in Islam is not on punishment itself but the reform of the criminal as well as a reminder to those who are witnesses to the punishment. We believe that after receiving the due punishment in this world, the murderer in the life hereafter will not be questioned about it, and will receive his due share of rewards for the good he might have done in this life. For this reason, before the administration of capital punishment, he is advised to perform the ritual prayer and pray to God for his forgiveness before he departs this world."

The bottom line is that I believe killing is wrong, period.
That in some cases it may be justified, but is still wrong.
That capital punishment does not work, nor heal, nor repair.
That Saddam, evil though he may have been, still should have been locked up for the rest of his life, not executed, but if he had been killed while on the run (like his sons) that would have been better.

As to what to do with them all.....all the "to be killed" criminals...
find an island...build a 20 foot wall around it.
drop them in and let them rot. No phone, no car, not a single luxury. Airdrop in food and medicine, but otherwise, ignore them. Exile them from civilization with but the bare materials of life. Patrol the waters and air 24/7 and use their fortunes and money from every nation to fund the guards (who are not allowed to land except when dropping off the next SOB.

Let "God" sort them out.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm a person who trains in the killing arts, hoping that the day never comes where I have to use that knowledge. To me, the taking of life, any life, is wrong, but if it becomes a choice "him or me" then I will choose me. Just as there are things worth dying over, there are things worth killing for. Money, power, wealth, revenge, none of them are on my list. One can take this to extremes, the absurd yet fitting "you ate steak, that means you killed a cow, bad bad" that some go to. We each choose where that line is. For me, I've chosen. I will take no joy, no comfort, no happiness in death, regardless of the evil involved.

Saddam is dead. Few, including me will refute that he deserved death, for all he dealt. My argument is on the manner in which it was done.

There is also the argument that killing him was justice. I disagree. He's dead. He's now beyond our justice. Justice to me, would have had him spending the rest of his life, enjoying the facilities that he provided to so many others.
Torture is wrong, revenge is wrong, killing is wrong. Sometimes though, justice is also wrong while being right.

His death has already produced more death. More is yet to come.

 

[jdinca]

No. I didn't say that at all. Please reread what I did say.

You are correct. I was tired and grumpy. My apologies. :asian:

 

[Bob Hubbard]

No worries.

 

[jdinca]

I am done with this thread, btw. The final page shows me that we've reached a level where basic core beliefs are in action and nothing anybody can say will change someone's point of view, or yield any new enlightenment.

Until the next debate... :asian:

 

[Andrew Green]

With all the effort wasted on Iraq, Osama continues to oversee training camps and arm and outfit new terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. His network, rather than be destroyed, has gone independent making for a harder not easier situation.

I saw something that basically said the CIA had concluded that Bush did pretty much what Bin Laden had wanted. The 9/11 attack was designed to force a reaction, or rather a over reaction that would offend many of the Muslims in the region and get them to join his fight.

If the US had stayed on course, and just taken out Bin Laden his organization would probably have fallen. But by taking it outside of that Al'Quiada was able to grow a lot bigger and gain a lot more support.

They concluded that Bin Laden's 2004 tape was designed to boast Bush's chances in the election it was released a couple days before. Largely because Bush at the wheel would rally his troops against the US.

Of course things have gone from tracking a terrorist group to fighitng resistance fighters, guerrila warfare, trying to stabalize a civil war, etc.

If the criteria for warranting invasion becomes "thumbing there nose at the UN", well, I think the US is not really the one to claim to be the enforcer of that criteria.

 

[Cruentus]

One can only assume that a user of this phrase believes the recipient to be smarter than being revealed or, perhaps, to use only select pieces of his/her intelligence to argue a false point towards an alternative agenda.

Well, see, it is on this point where I really don't think I can continue with this thread. I don't want to be upset, or upset anyone over this. People like yourself, Bob, and others who I consider friends (some online friends, others I know personally) hold a position that I think is utterly wrong. I do think that your doing this either for the reasons you described above at best, at worst because that is what you really believe. I like you guys, but I just can't jive with it. I just have a hard time believing that people can't logically seperate, say, Lyndon B. Johnson from Saddam Hussein.

All of the "wrongs" committed (or allegedly committed) by presidents you mentioned are either not proven (like LBJ) or in a completely different socio-historical context (like George Washington during the revolutionary war and the establishment of a new nation) or not even to the same degree or severety (Bush's alledged "sham trials" for example). Can you name one account, for example, of an assassination or false execution authorized by George Bush? One that didn't already follow a process that "we the people" put into place? So, no, you can't mention Al Zarchowi (sp?) or other terrorists as he was killed during war time. So, no, you can't mention the Texas death penalty, as this is a process that voters and reps. in Texas established. And, do you really equate a bad environmental policy with intentionally using chemical weapons on your own citizens?

I could keep going, but I am guessing that it is useless. The few things that I mentioned that Saddam is responsible for has been covered by about every major media source around the world; I have personally checked BBC, Asian news sources, European News sources, as well as U.S. news sources to find same or similar accounts regarding Saddam. There is no question that he is responsible for at least that much, and much more. If one questions that, then one can do research on ones own, right after the research on whether or not the Holocaust or 9-11 really happened is complete.

But, if one can't logically seperate someone like Saddam and someone like President Bush or LBJ, then it really leaves us no logical bases for discussion. So, in my opinion: yes, it is in the toilet.

One last thing:

It's not the discussion that's in the toilet, my friend. That commode is perpetually backed up with apathy, a blind faith in the people who run this country, and MISPLACED PATRIOTISM.

Oh, and let me define that for you:

Misplaced patriotism is rallying behind the Chief just because he holds that title. It is believing so blindly in your nation to be INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST enough to say there is little wrong with it, that the men who have run this nation into the ground are doing it far more good than we can even imagine.

Four more years ... oo-rah this.

I am sure this doesn't apply to me, because nothing I have ever said indicates a "misplaced patriotism." I am an independent voter, and I have never "blindly" supported anyone politically. I have always believed that people should be held accountable for their actions, and that includes any and all of our Presidents. I personally don't think that any of them have been "death penalty worthy," but they certianly should be held accountable. If it ever turned out that we had a president who was like a Hitler or Hussein, and was worthy of the death penalty, then I would support it even if it was a sad day in our history.

But that isn't really the discussion, now is it? Yet, it does make me curious as to why a discussion regarding Saddam's execution turns into a discussion about our current administration, or about past presidents, or about american atrocities. That, and the inability to logically seperate these things out and put them in context makes me think that there are more personal issues going on here then what could warrent any productive conversation.

But again, I am not even sure that is happening. I think that this is mostly a case of people who don't support the death penalty even in extreme cases like this trying to justify the position. See, if we make many people look like they are on the same teir as Saddam Hussein, then we are left with the slippery slope where we either believe that almost every world leader should be executed or we don't support the death penalty at all. Well, I am sorry, but as I previously mentioned, I think that this strategic leveling of the playing field is not intellectually honest or responsible. Sorry to let the cat out of the bag. I think that one could make a good point regarding not supporting the death penalty without having to use this tactic.

But, that's just what I think.

Good luck to you all.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

And you're welcome to think it. If we all thought alike, life would be boring my friend.

I do recognize the differences between the individuals. But I don't judge that 1 life is worth more or less than another, and I don't believe that a life for a life is right. Even though if in certain situations I would pull the trigger or swing the blade myself, ending anothers existence. I believe stealing is wrong too, but wouldn't hesitate to pocket a loaf of bread or a blanket if I or mine were starving or freezing.

 

[Cruentus]

And you're welcome to think it. If we all thought alike, life would be boring my friend.

I do recognize the differences between the individuals. But I don't judge that 1 life is worth more or less than another, and I don't believe that a life for a life is right. Even though if in certain situations I would pull the trigger or swing the blade myself, ending anothers existence. I believe stealing is wrong too, but wouldn't hesitate to pocket a loaf of bread or a blanket if I or mine were starving or freezing.

See, now I see nothing wrong with that, even though my opinion differs slightly when it comes to certain people. I totally respect that opinion. In a sense, one who shares that opinion is probably a better person then I am. Well said!

 

[Andrew Green]

Here's another take on it: http://richarddawkins.net/article,482,n,n

And one that I rather agree with. Why kill someone that could provide a lot of insight into the mind of a dictator. He should have been locked up and handed over to the psychologists and historians. Figure out what happened, why, how he did it, and how to prevent it in the future.

 

[TimoS]

I read an article in a finnish newspaper where it was said that during reign Saddam and his family probably stashed away millions (or was it billions) of dollars and now nobody knows where they are. The article said something that the investigators, mostly american I believe, now would like to talk Saddam's family members in Jordania about those monies. Somehow I don't think they'll be very co-operative

 

[Andrew Green]

I read an article in a finnish newspaper where it was said that during reign Saddam and his family probably stashed away millions (or was it billions) of dollars and now nobody knows where they are. The article said something that the investigators, mostly american I believe, now would like to talk Saddam's family members in Jordania about those monies. Somehow I don't think they'll be very co-operative

Yeah... "Hi, we executed your Dad, now we think he might have stashed a lot of money somewhere, and we want it. Can you help us out?"

Although the CIA did uncover this piece of evidence:
View attachment $treasure_map.jpg

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Security guard questioned in Hussein hanging video
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/03/saddam.execution/index.html

Excerpt:

The man is being executed'

Early Saturday morning, Hussein was transported from his cell at Camp Cropper to the execution site, a building where Hussein's intelligence officers had also carried out hangings.

There, he was handed over to Iraqi security.

Official government video of the execution was released without sound and ends when the noose is put around Hussein's neck.

But the crude cell-phone video leaked less than 24 hours later goes much further -- showing bitter exchanges between Hussein and his Shiite guards.

After Hussein offers prayers, the guards shout praise for Muqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shiite cleric whose father is believed to have been murdered by Hussein's regime.

They chant, "Muqtada! Muqtada! Muqtada!"

Hussein smiles.

"Is this how you show your bravery as men?" he asks.

"Straight to hell," someone shouts back at him.

"Is this the bravery of Arabs?" Hussein asks.

A sole voice is heard trying to silence the taunts.

"Please, I am begging you not to," the unknown man says. "The man is being executed."

Faroon, the chief prosecutor, said that was his voice. "I personally shouted at them and said there is no need, and kept on shouting and my voice is clear in the recording, I think," he said.

Another shout, "Long live Mohammed Baqir Sadr" was referring to a relative of Muqtada al-Sadr and a founder of the Shiite Dawa movement, who was executed by the Hussein regime. Dawa is al-Maliki's party.

The taunts continued, and the trapdoor dropped shortly after 6 a.m. Saturday. Hussein was hanged.

Immediately after, Shiite witnesses danced around his body, chanting celebratory slogans.

The images raised concerns that even moderate Sunnis would be driven further away from the Shiite-led government they already mistrust, reducing the chances for a united Iraq where the sects share power.

 

[Cruentus]

I will say that it is annoying to me that those morons had to turn it into a sectarian statement. It didn't have to be that way. It is almost like they are asking for more violence to occur in their country.

 

[michaeledward]

I will say that it is annoying to me that those morons had to turn it into a sectarian statement. It didn't have to be that way. It is almost like they are asking for more violence to occur in their country.

I think that is exactly what they are asking for. The Shi'ite's who have been having this fued with the Sunni's for several centuries. Most recently, they had been oppressed by Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party, which was predominantly Sunni.

As the Shi'ite represent 60% of the population of the country formerly known as Iraq ... and the Sunni represent only 20% of the population of that state ... it would seem the Shi'ites will be very content with more violence. They are favored in the body counts.

I would further point out that those 'morons' were picked by the elected leaders of the country, by votes of more than 8 million Iraqis. I doubt they view themselves as 'morons'; patriots perhaps, freedom fighters, at the very least - bringers of justice.

 

[Cruentus]

I would further point out that those 'morons' were picked by the elected leaders of the country, by votes of more than 8 million Iraqis. I doubt they view themselves as 'morons'; patriots perhaps, freedom fighters, at the very least - bringers of justice.

Good points. To me, one thing a moron would do would be to intentionally perpetuate violence in his own country. Yet, we frequently vote in morons as well who probably don't see themselves as such. Some things are universal, I guess.