Saddam Hussein's execution: V

[Banquo's Ghost]

econ21's thread got lost in a glitch with the database, so I have deleted that attempt and have his permission to re-post what he wrote.

Please let's keep this discussion civil as he requests.


We've had three locked threads connected to Saddam's execution. But it seems sad if the Backroom can't discuss a current event as salient as this, so let's try a fourth time to get a thread that does not need to be locked.

I want to have a go with a fourth thread, because the execution has created a strong, negative, feeling in me that I don't think has been articulated so far.

When I first realised that Saddam was likely to be executed - long ago, at the start of his trial - I had mixed feelings. I could see the Nuremburg analogy and I reviled the man. But confronting the reality has hardened my view against it. Seeing an old man with a noose around his neck, surrounded by hooded executioners, is a disturbing image. It reminds me of those awful "snuff" videos of the terrorists and their soon to be beheaded orange clothed prisoners. It invokes pity and sadness because it shows a man about to die. And it angers me because my government (the UK) has been complicit in what led up to it and because it lowers "our side" to a level perilously close to that of Saddam and the jihadi terrorists. I would like to say that we don't kill people in cold blood, that we don't torture, that we don't deprive people of liberty for years without trial. But I can't.

I am against capital punishment and in essence, the issue of capital punishment is almost all this case boils down to. But, like most red blooded people, I can momentarily waiver in my opposition to the death penalty when faced with a specific heinous crime or monstrous criminal. Yet, somehow, Saddam's case just reinforced my opposition to any executions.

This is despite my firm belief that Saddam was a gangster and a particularly murderous one. And I have no reasonable doubt that he committed the crime for which he was executed, as well as many more.

But there is just something repellant in coldly taking a helpless man's life. If in war, an enemy soldier is pointing a gun at you, I would have no hesitation in saying kill him. I am not a pacifist. But to take a man's life when there is a simple non-violent alternative (life imprisonment) just seems wrong. I know I can't persuade anyone of that view - it's axiomatic; you either share it or you do not. A life has an instrinsic value, whether it's that of an old mass murderer in a cell, or a newborn baby in Iraq. Taking it unnecessarily seems disrespectful of humanity, malign and I want to say devoid of love, to use the language probably derived my Christian upbringing.

I am generally suspicious of "slippery slope" arguments, but they do seem to apply here. Once you start killing people in cold blood, it becomes easier to contemplate launching a missile into an Al Jahazeera office because you don't like their message, taking a few captured insurgents round the back to be summarily executed or poisoning a dissident who is agitating against you. Executions seem to entail a state sponsored level of brutality that weaken our sensibilities and defenses against lethal abuses of state power.

Will there be an instrumental benefit in having taken Saddam's life? To be honest, I don't really care. That's not the point. You could make arguments either way, although it does not seem auspicious (some Iraqi Sunnis apparently viewing the execution as a declaration of war).

Maybe we can't discuss this issue in a civilised manner. Maybe the battlelines are too clearly drawn. It's too much a case of "one for our side!" and "gotcha!". American soldiers are being killed every week in Iraq and Saddam, probably wrongly, is identified as the figurehead of the killers. (If it were OBL instead of Saddam on the gallows, I might momentarily waiver again. But after this experience, I doubt it.) But let's try to discuss it without flames or cheap shots.

:bow:

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

I like to put it like this:

If two men ride down a street and kill an 8 year old child for no reason, should they get the death penalty?

So if a dictator gasses and kills an entire village because of one assasination attempt, should he be put to death? Remember, these were unarmed civilians, women and children too.

[Vuk]

YAY! It's about time!
No offence to any terrorists here, but I'm really glad this happened. :D

[scooter_the_shooter]

I have a link to the real thing (not the edited one I put in the video thread)


If anyone wants to see it pm me. It'd be pretty terrifying to be in his shoes. It's bad enough they were about to hang him but it seemed like they were chanting at him while doing it.

I don't think they should have leaked it but...if it's out there I figured I might as well watch it.

[KukriKhan]

I have mixed feelings similar (though not identical) to econ21's with capital punishment in general.

But regarding Mr. Hussein: it's not my country, or my court system, or my legislature - so I am entitled to no opinion, in my opinion; rather like I view Texas executions.

That said, the taunting by masked executioners, seems unprofessional in the extreme to these Western eyes.

[Divinus Arma]

Saw it. Thanks SFTS.

[scotchedpommes]

Does professionalism come into it at all? Not in my view. The entire trial itself
was a mockery, and the process [taunting included or not] itself was enough to
add significantly to the hatred felt across that part of the world.

[Brenus]

Yeap, it was a great moment of justice. A court where judges were removed, lawyers killed… And the execution by hooded executioners was just the mirror of the trial. Were they scared or ashamed to participate? Were they obliged or did they volunteer? It wasn’t Nuremberg… It wasn’t even The Hague, the political court. It was a revolutionary trial without the St Just as prosecutor and his sentences (no freedom for the enemies of freedom…). It was a farce where nothing was explained, and brought to the light. Saddam was guilty, and was sentenced and executed for a crime he did commit. But when will we learn about Hallabjah, the war against Iran, the slaughter of the Arab of the swamp? He was executed for the lesser crime, and Chirac, Rumsfeld and all the politicians who sold him weapons and went to shake his hands can now breathe freely. They won’t have to answer difficult questions, even if the chances were even narrower than for Milocevic’s trial…
Well done, and mission accomplished…:clown:

[Banquo's Ghost]

I have mixed feelings similar (though not identical) to econ21's with capital punishment in general.

But regarding Mr. Hussein: it's not my country, or my court system, or my legislature - so I am entitled to no opinion, in my opinion; rather like I view Texas executions.

That said, the taunting by masked executioners, seems unprofessional in the extreme to these Western eyes.

The concerns I have from the apparent taunting and the release of the unofficial recording are twofold:

First, the taunts seem to be very sectarian as the name of Moqtadr al-Sadr was prominent. This further enhances the view that this was a simple revenge by the Shia dominated government rather than a judicial execution. Sunnis were already going to be alienated by the sentence, this appears to be extra salt in the sectarian wound. And if al-Sadr is associated with Saddam's execution, this builds his power base evn more among the Shia. (Remeber that this fellow is hardly supportive of the occupation, US influence or indeed the current government).

Second, Saddam actually came off as dignified and somewhat courageous, challenging his tormentors and belying the official government propaganda that he went to his death a cowed and frightened man.

The latter is probably as irrelevant in the long run as his execution, as the insurgency has moved a long way past being the remnants of the old order. The former, sectarian impact will just deepen divisions.

If the execution had to happen (and everyone knows my views, so I'll not go there) it should have been controlled much more professionally. I can fully understand why the US did not want to be involved, but the tawdry spectacle will not have helped their cause.

[Divinus Arma]

I agree that it came across as very unprofessional and primitive. This is exactly how an execution should not be done.

I would have been more satisified with a hospital setting, even for the gallows. White walls, brightly lit, professional uniforms, and total silence except for the presence and speech of a judge or supervisor. The execution should have been delayed by the slightest hint of unprofessionalism.

This only makes the process appear corrupt. :no:

I am very dissapointed.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

So they was Chanting as him when he was getting Excuted? No Big Deal. He Derserved it. If you was him, would you like it? mabye not, but even still.

[Productivity]

So they was Chanting as him when he was getting Excuted? No Big Deal. He Derserved it. If you was him, would you like it? mabye not, but even still.


You have a disturbingly cheap view of the dignity of human life. I find it interesting that even Divinus Arma, one of the posters I would expect to be strongly in favour of the execution (as it seems you are DA), came out criticising the actual process of execution.

This cheer squad of he deserved it who cares let him die without any care for dignity seems to be reducing the act of taking another persons life to mere comedy or entertainment. I have never had to take anothers life, something for which I am thankful, but I have talked to those who have. It has impacted all of them profoundly and they all wish that they never had to do it. Even at executions the roles are split, no one person can fully say I killed the prisoner, no matter how heinous they are, to avoid this enormity.

I wonder Warman, have you ever taken someones life, or is it all just a meld between entertainment and news for you?

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

You have a disturbingly cheap view of the dignity of human life. I find it interesting that even Divinus Arma, one of the posters I would expect to be strongly in favour of the execution (as it seems you are DA), came out criticising the actual process of execution.

This cheer squad of he deserved it who cares let him die without any care for dignity seems to be reducing the act of taking another persons life to mere comedy or entertainment. I have never had to take anothers life, something for which I am thankful, but I have talked to those who have. It has impacted all of them profoundly and they all wish that they never had to do it. Even at executions the roles are split, no one person can fully say I killed the prisoner, no matter how heinous they are, to avoid this enormity.

I wonder Warman, have you ever taken someones life, or is it all just a meld between entertainment and news for you?


Well, if you were chosen to hang the man who was a tyrant of your country and killed your friends/family, wouldn't you be happy to see him gone?

[Productivity]

Well, if you were chosen to hang the man who was a tyrant of your country and killed your friends/family, wouldn't you be happy to see him gone?

Would I be happy to see him gone? I guess so, it's a position I never want to be in, but yes, I would be glad to see him gone, in the sense that he can no longer harm my family/country. I'd define gone as the point at which he was captured by the US though, from there he couldn't harm anyone. From there I would expect due process and life imprisonment. Not a farce of a trial and a bloodthirsty act of revenge.

Would I be happy to see him gone in that he is dead? Ask yourself this. How has the world changed for his lack of life. Is it safer? Is it better? I'd argue no to both of these, his death changed nothing in practice. The one thing that it did change in practice, was that those that were owed a process for the crimes comitted against them have now been robbed of that chance.

So what did we gain from having a dead Saddam as opposed to a live Saddam. Tell me that and then I'll reconsider how I'd feel.

[Tribesman]

So they was Chanting as him when he was getting Excuted? No Big Deal.

No big deal huh ?:dizzy2:
Its a very big deal warmann , but I don't expect you can comprehend that since it appears that actions that will be used to increase sectarian conflict do not seem to register on your scope of things that will be used to increase sectarian conflict .:no:


If you was him, would you like it? mabye not, but even still.
Ah I see , well the funny thing is that it isn't really about if Saddam would have liked the taunts , its whether the nuts with guns get yet another reason to go crazy killing more people .

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

You have a disturbingly cheap view of the dignity of human life. I find it interesting that even Divinus Arma, one of the posters I would expect to be strongly in favour of the execution (as it seems you are DA), came out criticising the actual process of execution.

This cheer squad of he deserved it who cares let him die without any care for dignity seems to be reducing the act of taking another persons life to mere comedy or entertainment. I have never had to take anothers life, something for which I am thankful, but I have talked to those who have. It has impacted all of them profoundly and they all wish that they never had to do it. Even at executions the roles are split, no one person can fully say I killed the prisoner, no matter how heinous they are, to avoid this enormity.

I wonder Warman, have you ever taken someones life, or is it all just a meld between entertainment and news for you?



Oh Wait Productivity, Please go tell that to everyone who had family and/or friends murder by him. He Killed Thousands apon Thousands of People for no apprant reason, and he derserved what he recived, and I don't want any person to come to me and say "Well I am a Devout Relgiolius Person and think he should have got life" or "I'm just a normal person and think he should have got life", yet a "decent" executions.


And I wonder, have you ever taken someone's life, or is it entertainment and news for you?

Because No, I haven't. Mabye you have, but I haven't.Yes it is Entertainment. Why? He Killed people for no reason, and got what he did to Many people, he got himself executed. Would I kill Someone? Hell Yes I would, and don't argue with me about it. Self-Defense wise I will, but that the ONLY time I will. If someone is threating me and/or my family/friends, then I will have no choice in taking out my gun and settling it with a sad,but true, bullet to the head in Self-Defense.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

Oh Wait Productivity, Please go tell that to everyone who had family and/or friends murder by him. He Killed Thousands apon Thousands of People for no apprant reason, and he derserved what he recived, and I don't want any person to come to me and say "Well I am a Devout Relgiolius Person and think he should have got life" or "I'm just a normal person and think he should have got life", yet a "decent" executions.


And I wonder, have you ever taken someone's life, or is it entertainment and news for you?

Because No, I haven't. Mabye you have, but I haven't.Yes it is Entertainment. Why? He Killed people for no reason, and got what he did to Many people, he got himself executed. Would I kill Someone? Hell Yes I would, and don't argue with me about it. Self-Defense wise I will, but that the ONLY time I will. If someone is threating me and/or my family/friends, then I will have no choice in taking out my gun and settling it with a sad,but true, bullet to the head in Self-Defense.

Agreed.

If someone killed your family for no reason, wouldn't you want revenge?

[Slyspy]

Better he had been shot in his hidey-hole. The farcical trial and (essentially) public execution does little to legitimise the Iraqi government at home and less to dispel its image as a puppet state (if we can even call it that) abroad.

Why some of you insist on viewing the whole sorry episode on the net is beyond me. It seems rather ghoulish and distinctly uncivilised. When the Taliban publically executed people in a football ground it was regarded as a mark of their barbarism.

I also fail to see why so many Americans regard Saddam as their personal enemy.

Edit:

If in truth the footage of the execution does indeed strengthen the cause of one of the warlords looking for power when the allies withdraw then it has truely been a waste of time.

[Productivity]

Because No, I haven't. Mabye you have, but I haven't.

I've allready answered that, I have never killed someone and hope that I never have to.


Yes it is Entertainment.

...

You have absolutely no stake in this as far as I can tell, so no prime motive of revenge to justify this. You view watching someone die as entertainment? I don't think I can actually communicate with you. I'm more in touch with Jupiter than I am with someone who would view watching an execution as entertainment.

I was going to respond further, but I'm still struggling to comprehend that you view an execution as entertainment. I don't think my mind can function in the same way as yours can to be honest.

[Pannonian]

If the US is indeed looking towards the 80% solution for Iraq, then a live Saddam would have been more useful than a dead one. Kept alive but secure, we could make the implicit threat that we'll give up on the mission and reinstall him if the Shi'ites and Kurds got uppity. A dead Saddam is of no use to us.

[scotchedpommes]

Better he had been shot in his hidey-hole. The farcical trial and (essentially) public execution does little to legitimise the Iraqi government at home and less to dispel its image as a puppet state (if we can even call it that) abroad.

Why some of you insist on viewing the whole sorry episode on the net is beyond me. It seems rather ghoulish and distinctly uncivilised. When the Taliban publically executed people in a football ground it was regarded as a mark of their barbarism.

I also fail to see why so many Americans regard Saddam as their personal enemy.

Edit:

If in truth the footage of the execution does indeed strengthen the cause of one of the warlords looking for power when the allies withdraw then it has truely been a waste of time.

Perhaps the footage was to serve as some measure of validation for them that this entire venture in Iraq wasn't merely a waste of lives securing US interests: over-simplification, although it is there, displayed as yet another banner, the "bad guy" is dead, and as was said, mission accomplished. Only the image is shattered, for those who strangely seem to have expected this shambolic [indeed, corrupt] affair to be sanitised for their viewing. It appears, simply because it is, nothing more than victor's justice hastily carried out. Much like Ceauşescu, only the murderers in this case will be viewed as working for a puppet regime, rather than a revolutionary force which is essentially free from external control.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

I've allready answered that, I have never killed someone and hope that I never have to.



...

You have absolutely no stake in this as far as I can tell, so no prime motive of revenge to justify this. You view watching someone die as entertainment? I don't think I can actually communicate with you. I'm more in touch with Jupiter than I am with someone who would view watching an execution as entertainment.

I was going to respond further, but I'm still struggling to comprehend that you view an execution as entertainment. I don't think my mind can function in the same way as yours can to be honest.

So you won't debate with someone because they don't have the same view as you? Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice.

[Productivity]

So you won't debate with someone because they don't have the same view as you? Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice.

I'm happy to debate other views, but there comes a point at which there is no common ground and nothing left to debate. There can never be any understanding and so nothing can be gained from the debate. I feel that point has been reached here...

[Geoffrey S]

Quite aside from the death penalty, which I believe to be wrong and doubly so in the case of former heads of state, the manner in which this one was performed repels me. It is not the exact manner in which the execution took place but the fact that it was filmed and used to make some kind of political statement: this approach treats his death as a milestone, as something to be proud of, and this is not a view I can agree with. It is the same callous disregard for the value of life displayed under Saddam's own rule and it is not something I'd have though the new government or the US government would want to associate itself with.

And the more recent footage containing taunts directed at Saddam does more damage than good. For a trial that could have been a defining legal precedent, the conclusion underlined exactly what the rest of the trial was: a legal shambles.

So you won't debate with someone because they don't have the same view as you? Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice.
Let's face it, he wasn't exactly contributing useful reasonings to the debate.

[Banquo's Ghost]

So you won't debate with someone because they don't have the same view as you? Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice.

I believe that Productivity has recognised that BHCKingWarman and he are unlikely to develop the debate constructively because of their very differing perspective.

To withdraw before setting up an emotionally charged confrontation is not only very mature and wise, it is much appreciated by those of us who might have had to clear up the pieces.

:bow:

[Tribesman]

I'm happy to debate other views, but there comes a point at which there is no common ground and nothing left to debate. There can never be any understanding and so nothing can be gained from the debate. I feel that point has been reached here...
Hmmmmmm.......

Let's face it, he wasn't exactly contributing useful reasonings to the debate.
yesssss ....
OK I shall take up on Warmans "it was entertaining viewing" reasoning .
Don't you guys find it exceptionally entertaining that at the execution of this person who was wanted dead or alive by the US in part for killing Iraqi people of different views to ensure his position , that members of the audience were chanting the name of someone who just happens to be wanted dead or alive by the US , in part for killing Iraqi people of different views to ensure his position .
So you must admit warman was actually right on the nail with his reasoning about it being entertaining . :2thumbsup:
Unless of course he meant something else entirely ~;)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I would prefer the end of the death penalty. Though not the barbarism some claim, the death penalty rarely invokes the angels of our better natures. In this case, I think an aging and incarcerated Saddam -- well treated but marginalized -- might have been the more telling image.

Nevertheless, I also disagree with the earlier comment about the death penalty being wrong "doubly so for national leaders." [paraphrase not quote] Extant power/legal/cultural systems already make it too easy for such leaders to function outside the boundaries of their own legal systems. This tendency should NOT be encouraged. Our leaders cannot and should not be aided in the ability to view/hold themselves as above the law -- it's a byproduct of their power enough already and we should not formalize it.

Public executions have often -- always? -- carried with them a sad comment on humanity's willingness to view them as entertainment. Saddam's was no exception. DA's model would have been better, but human-kind rarely kills its own in such a fashion.

The point is that reveling in his death in any manner should be abhorent. Even if you felt his crimes warranted not only incarceration but death, that death should have been meted out in the same fashion that one would execute a dog gone rabid. It's a menace so you kill it quickly and cleanly and then remove the mess. Perhaps a bit of quiet satisfaction for doing a job professionally that had to be done, but surely no cause for celebration. Celebrating such a thing speaks ill of the celebrant -- Saddam has already gone on to whatever reward awaits him.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

I've allready answered that, I have never killed someone and hope that I never have to.



...

You have absolutely no stake in this as far as I can tell, so no prime motive of revenge to justify this. You view watching someone die as entertainment? I don't think I can actually communicate with you. I'm more in touch with Jupiter than I am with someone who would view watching an execution as entertainment.

I was going to respond further, but I'm still struggling to comprehend that you view an execution as entertainment. I don't think my mind can function in the same way as yours can to be honest.



Then If you can't Debate with me, and I can't debate with you, then lets not say anything else. Your views in this post made no sense to me.


and Yes I was. I was putting my own Views up here. If you don't like it, then don't post here in the Backroom and don't debate with me. Plain and Simple people.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Then If you can't Debate with me, and I can't debate with you, then lets not say anything else. Your views in this post made no sense to me.

and Yes I was. I was putting my own Views up here. If you don't like it, then don't post here in the Backroom and don't debate with me. Plain and Simple people.

You are both entitled to your views, and Productivity is perfectly entitled to both post in, and withdraw from debate as he sees fit.

Please accept his decision and let's move on.

[Tribesman]

Your views in this post made no sense to me.

Do I see a vessel that has boiled water too often over an open fire there ?:yes: :laugh4:
So making sense , great idea . So an earlier post

Please go tell that to everyone who had family and/or friends murder by him.
Well a quick view of any in depth news would show that that makes no sense . Once again Warman you have decided to champion the cause of the victims relatives without bothering with what they themselves have to say , little things like being denied justice and feeling cheated .



He Killed Thousands apon Thousands of People for no apprant reason
That also makes no sense either , he started killing before he was in power ,he had reasons . The day when he siezed power he broadcast footage of people being dragged from the hall to be killed , he had reasons .
When he gassed the Kurds he had reasons . When he did the killings for which he was executed he had reasons .

So clearly plainly and simply , you make no sense .:shrug:

BTW was I right in interpreting your "entertainment" viewpoint or was you meaning something else entirely ?:laugh4:

[King Henry V]

I agree with the principal that a brutal dictator such as Saddam Hussein should be executed for his crimes, just as I support the principal of capital punishment that a murderer should be executed. However, as we all know, there is often a great difference between theory and practice.
The truth of the matter is that Hussein's execution will do little to improve matters in Iraq, especially compounded by the amateurish conduct of the judiciray system in Iraq vis a vis his execution, though I suppose its nascent state can excuse it somewhat. The Sunni rebels and Baa'thists will gain a martyr and another focal point for the continuation of their struggle. Though the Shiites will be relieved that their former tormentor is dead and buried, the wound between them and the Sunnis will be deepened even further. All in all, this execution can only worsen the situation.
For once, I do agree that Saddam Hussein should have been imprisonned in a kind of Devil's Island far from Iraq, where he could have died from some "illness" some years later. I say this not because I believe that his "dignity" should not be violated, as I believe someone should be treated according to their actions, not according to the fact that he was a human, but rather because practically speaking, this would have been the ideal solution. He would have been unable to make any broadcasts about continuing the fight and soon he would become forgotten and irrelevant, and no longer a man to be feared.

[Adrian II]

If someone killed your family for no reason, wouldn't you want revenge?Of course. And revenge provokes retribution, which leads to new revenge, causing a cycle of bloodshed that disrupts all public life. That is why Justice and the rule of Law were instituted; they are means to settle disputes in the interest of society, not to exact revenge on behalf of a wronged individual. It is disappointing to see how many people lack this basic notion of the concept of Justice.

Apart from my opposition to the death penalty on principal grounds, I deplore the whole process leading to Saddam's execution because it had fatal shortcomings. The proceedings were constantly disrupted by murders, political appointments and other outside interventions such as the dismissal of many of the defendant's witnesses.

I particularly deplore the fact that Saddam was condemned to death on the grounds of a minor charge. Instead, he should have stood trial for his major crimes, i.e. the war against Iran and the gassing of citizens in the Anfal campaign. The trial never got around to those charges because the crimes involved too many great powers -- those who armed and supported Saddam in the 1980-1988 war against Iran (Soviet Union, US, China, Great Britain, France) and those who sold him the components for his chemical weaponry (mainly the US and the Soviet Union). If anything, Justice should be seen to be done. In this case, what we saw was a kangaroo court that ended in a deliberately (religiously) provocative execution which, on top of everything else, was filmed and broadcast around the world, adding insult and stupidity to injury.

[Reenk Roink]

Retribution is the most dominant (and in this case basically the only) motive in death penalty, and it is the reason why I support the death penalty so strongly in this case.

Saddam deserves to be killed because he killed others. The families of the victims have their right to retribution. His death won't deter other dictators in positions of power at all, so you can't use the deterrence case like you could in a normal murder.

State instituted capital punishment is one of the greatest things that a state can do. It fulfills our natural and justified desire for retribution and ends the possibility of blood feuds that would proceed if we took retribution into our own hands.

Go back to Archaic Athens. Blood feuds rampant, especially between the oligarchic factions. Who knows how they started...

Come Draco, with his law code. Sure, we get our word "draconian" from him because for small crimes he advocated the death penalty, but although his other laws were repealed by Solon, Cleisthenes, and later reformers, his homicide laws stood.

Now, though the trial was a complete joke (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56IojapCRIE) and though I didn't watch the execution, fellow Orgah's confirm that it was a travesty, this does not at all take away from the principle that Saddam should have been executed.

[Major Robert Dump]

Since DNA evidence was not used to prove Saddams innocence, I honestly think he was framed by an overzealous distict attorney and racist cops. I think president Ford should have pardoned him before he died.

SADDAM HAS BEEN DEFEATED. IRAQ GAINS 50000 XP

[Adrian II]

Saddam deserves to be killed because he killed others.If only things were that simple. Killing others does not equal murder. And political violence of the kind perpetrated by Saddam shouldn't be met with a lynching in a similar vein. That is worse than a crime, it is a mistake.

The overriding concern in political cases such as his should be the establishment of guilt, responsibility and most of all: the way things actually happened. If the latter could be established, I daresay the complicity of the invaders and occupiers, the US and UK, in Saddam's major crimes (as mentioned above) would become very clear. They are very well documented. Maybe that is something which you as an American don't want to hear. On the other hand it may be that you just don't realise the futility of your primitive concept of justice.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

You are both entitled to your views, and Productivity is perfectly entitled to both post in, and withdraw from debate as he sees fit.

Please accept his decision and let's move on.


hey Bud, don't start firing on me now. I was just telling my views.Like I said, I was just saying my views, so if you don't like it, just don't respond to me and don't start and I won't say anything.so pelase back off.




Tribes, you making no sense. He killed people for no reason, or for the most idoitc reasons (or having you make idoitc knee jerk statements to irrate people). so please exlapin.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

If only things were that simple. Killing others does not equal murder. And political violence of the kind perpetrated by Saddam shouldn't be met with a lynching in a similar vein. That is worse than a crime, it is a mistake.

The overriding concern in political cases such as his should be the establishment of guilt, responsibility and most of all: the way things actually happened. If the latter could be established, I daresay the complicity of the invaders and occupiers, the US and UK, in Saddam's major crimes (as mentioned above) would become very clear. They are very well documented. Maybe that is something which you as an American don't want to hear. On the other hand it may be that you just don't realise the futility of your primitive concept of justice.

This is what gets me off. People who have a different opinion on justice than you must have a primitive concept of justice?:no:

[Ser Clegane]

:stop:

I expect this bickering to stop.

There are obviously people who are interested in discussing the thread topic in a reasonable and mature way.
Attempts to "hi-jack" this thread by starting personal little squabbles are neither polite nor will they be tolerated.

Thanks for your attention - now back to topic please

:bow:

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

This is what gets me off. People who have a different opinion on justice than you must have a primitive concept of justice?:no:


Agreed. This is why I don't even bother posting on these threads unless I see a post or two that gets me really irrate..

[Reenk Roink]

If only things were that simple. Killing others does not equal murder.

This is stating the obvious I'm afraid. I saw no need, given the common knowledge of the case, to explicitly differentiate between Saddam's killings and involuntary manslaughter, self-defense, negligence, etc...


And political violence of the kind perpetrated by Saddam shouldn't be met with a lynching in a similar vein. That is worse than a crime, it is a mistake.

Please re-read my post where I make clear that:

"Now, though the trial was a complete joke and though I didn't watch the execution, fellow Orgah's confirm that it was a travesty, this does not at all take away from the principle that Saddam should have been executed."

Your quoting only an extremely select part of my post (out of context) makes me think that you might have missed that.


The overriding concern in political cases such as his should be the establishment of guilt, responsibility and most of all: the way things actually happened. If the latter could be established, I daresay the complicity of the invaders and occupiers, the US and UK, in Saddam's major crimes (as mentioned above) would become very clear. They are very well documented. Maybe that is something which you as an American don't want to hear.

I am well aware of my country's Government involvement with Saddam, its hypocrisy, etc...

I do not know why you would assert this...

"Maybe that is something which you as an American don't want to hear."


On the other hand it may be that you just don't realise the futility of your primitive concept of justice.

Two things with this statement:

One: Do you know how arrogant you come off with these kinds of comments? The supercilious attitude that is present here is not befitting of a Senior Membership title.

Two: Let us then have a discourse on the ethics of death penalty and the issue of retributions place in punishment, instead of avoiding the issue entirely with a label, OK?

I have already given an very basic intro into my support of my position (namely physis), but I would like to ask you: Why do you hold my concept is "primitive"?

[Adrian II]

This is what gets me off. People who have a different opinion on justice than you must have a primitive concept of justice?:no:No, not all other concepts are primitive. But I think this one is and I explained why. Hanging a former dictator in the fashion we have witnessed is literally futile; it serves no discernable interest.

[Sjakihata]

SADDAM HAS BEEN DEFEATED. IRAQ GAINS 50000 XP


Current XP: 50,000
Next level: 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Once level 2 is reached, remember Iraq gets full health and mana.

Edit: Just wanted to add that I agree with AdrianIIs notion on justice, to let him know that he is not all alone out there ~:wave:

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

No, not all other concepts are primitive. But I think this one is and I explained why. Hanging a former dictator in the fashion we have witnessed is literally futile; it serves no discernable interest.


Well apparently to you, all other concepts of justice are primitive. Just because we have a different opinion on what justice is doesn't mean it's primitive. You called our view of justice primitive because it does not match your "primitive" view of justice.

[Adrian II]

Well apparently to you, all other concepts of justice are primitive.I presented my case and my reasons for it. Feel free to address them.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

I presented my case and my reasons for it. Feel free to address them.

But that doesn't mean you can start calling other people's views as "primitive".

[Reenk Roink]

Well apparently to you, all other concepts of justice are primitive. Just because we have a different opinion on what justice is doesn't mean it's primitive. You called our view of justice primitive because it does not match your "primitive" view of justice.

He holds that "The overriding concern in political cases such as his should be the establishment of guilt, responsibility and most of all: the way things actually happened"...

I agree so far. Which is why I hold that the trail was such a joke.

For his sentencing, I hold that execution is what is just. The reasons are due to retribution for his crimes.

He shows his disdain at the way the execution proceeded. I agree. I, however, hold that the principle of the execution still remains just.

I do not know where is "primitive" comment was directed, and its ambiguity led me to hold that it was just an ad hominem.

Now that I reflect on it, I say we should just apply the principle of charity and hold his use of "primitive" as "axiomatic". :grin:

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

But that doesn't mean you can start calling other people's views as "primitive".


argeed

[Strike For The South]

A 70 year old man who killed millions for no reasons other then to gain more power is dead. You cant excepect me to feel sorry. Im not glad however. I feel nothing. Saddam is the least of my worries right now. His power was broken months ago. Wether he lived or died he has very little to do with the eventual outcome of this conflict. His execution was shoddy and poorly done. No one deserves that, not even him. As for his trial we all knew he was guilty so saying it was anything less than fair is a farce.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Folks,

I think you're reading into AdrianII's word choice a bit much. I believe he is using "primitive" to mean:

straightforward and systemically/culturally simplistic, [not complex/advanced enough to work; this is an attack on the concept, not the poster]

and NOT

ignorant, simple-minded, and useless as are those who espouse same. [THIS would be the insulting version and implied personal attack]

If anything, I get a hint of wistfulness from Adrian -- as though he wished things were straightforward enough for such a system to work. He just doesn't see that approach jibing with the long-term greater good.

His point is arguable, since where and how you "draw the line" in establishing a legal system to promot justice is, and has been, an issue that has probably never been perfectly addressed (and that may be impossible to achieve).

[Pannonian]

For his sentencing, I hold that execution is what is just. The reasons are due to retribution for his crimes.

He shows his disdain at the way the execution proceeded. I agree. I, however, hold that the principle of the execution still remains just.

The action may be just, but it's not very clever. He would have been of more use kept alive as an implicit threat to the Shi'ite factions that no-one likes. The Qing emperor Pu Yi should by rights have been executed as a traitor after the war, but the Communists judged that rehabilitating him was of greater benefit to the regime, whatever his crimes. Similarly, Saddam should have been treated as the resource that he was, and used as such. Killing him served no coalition interests, and only removed one of our options.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

He serves no purpose alive or dead.

Besides, it is Iraq's decision, so no one else should be bickering.

I don't think many complained when the nazi's were executed. Same thing, different time and place.

[KukriKhan]

Here's a Reuters Update (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/MAC171273.htm) with some more clarification of what happened in the hours and minutes leading up to the execution - including a note that Iraq gov't is investigating how a mobile phone got into the chamber.

Sample:

While Saddam's sentencing and then death brought muted responses from most Sunnis, many have been particularly angered by video showing supporters of Shi'ite cleric and militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr chanting "Moqtada, Moqtada, Moqtada!" at him.

"Is this what you call manhood?" Saddam told them in reply.

Maliki adviser Askari said the government would look into how guards in the execution chamber, once used by Saddam's own feared secret police, had smuggled in a mobile phone camera.

[Pannonian]

He serves no purpose alive or dead.

A secularist with a track record of imposing order on Iraq, who could be relied upon to oppose extremist Islam, Iran, and Osama Bin Laden? I thought we were crying out for that kind of person. Anyway, even if we had no intention of putting him back in power, we should have kept him as an option with which to threaten the various sectarian factions. "Behave yourselves or we'll set Saddam loose on you".



Besides, it is Iraq's decision, so no one else should be bickering.

I don't think anyone's fooled by the facade of Iraqi sovereignty. Certainly not the Iraqi VP, who claimed that Blair promised an imminent British withdrawal, only to be overruled by Bush. Oh well, Brown's coming in later this year, so even if Blair wants to play the lapdog to the last we'll still be gone soon after.



I don't think many complained when the nazi's were executed. Same thing, different time and place.
We weren't begging to be released from occupation back then. Also, we actually had a good reason for fighting a war. Remember the worst crime the Nazis were charged with at Nuremberg? Starting a war by invading someone.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

We weren't begging to be released from occupation back then. Also, we actually had a good reason for fighting a war. Remember the worst crime the Nazis were charged with at Nuremberg? Starting a war by invading someone.

You mean like how Saddam invaded Kuwait? How he invaded Iran?

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

A secularist with a track record of imposing order on Iraq, who could be relied upon to oppose extremist Islam, Iran, and Osama Bin Laden? I thought we were crying out for that kind of person. Anyway, even if we had no intention of putting him back in power, we should have kept him as an option with which to threaten the various sectarian factions. "Behave yourselves or we'll set Saddam loose on you".


Ha right. Saddam ruled by fear. No one liked him, the only reason he had order in Iraq is because anyone who opposed him were killed. Iran isn't afraid of Iraq, especially after the Iran-Iraq War. "Oh no it's Saddam!" "Didn't we beat him?" "Oh right". No one was afraid of Saddam except his people. I doubt Kim Jong Li is pissing his pants when he hears about Saddam.

[Pannonian]

Ha right. Saddam ruled by fear. No one liked him, the only reason he had order in Iraq is because anyone who opposed him were killed. Iran isn't afraid of Iraq, especially after the Iran-Iraq War. "Oh no it's Saddam!" "Didn't we beat him?" "Oh right". No one was afraid of Saddam except his people. I doubt Kim Jong Li is pissing his pants when he hears about Saddam.
So what future do you see ahead for Iraq?

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

So what future do you see ahead for Iraq?

Well, if we put him back in power, he would just start his reign all over again. Since we didn't, Iraq's people are glad that the dictator is gone forever. For the future, I see more conflict.

[edyzmedieval]

Well, as far as my opinion goes, that was brutal, stupid and unnecessary.

1. Brutal. Hanging? Cmon, that is one of the crudest ways to die today. Like does it make a difference right now. Those people died more than 20 years ago, and even their avengeance won't bring back the dead.

2. Stupid. They have just started a big war. More and more blood in Iraq.

3. Unnecessary. Why kill him? Why couldn't they have kept him? Like it made a real difference.

Stupid. The execution was stupid. Another act of imbecility from Bush.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

Well, as far as my opinion goes, that was brutal, stupid and unnecessary.

1. Brutal. Hanging? Cmon, that is one of the crudest ways to die today. Like does it make a difference right now. Those people died more than 20 years ago, and even their avengeance won't bring back the dead.

2. Stupid. They have just started a big war. More and more blood in Iraq.

3. Unnecessary. Why kill him? Why couldn't they have kept him? Like it made a real difference.

Stupid. The execution was stupid. Another act of imbecility from Bush.

1. Would you rather have him tortured? Hanging is quick and painless if done right. When you reach the bottom, you pass out since your brain isn't getting blood. So, you can't feel anything. Perfect execution method.

2. He started the war. Invading Kuwait.

3. Why keep him alive?

[Pannonian]

2. He started the war. Invading Kuwait.

Can you show where this was given as one of the justifications put forward to Congress? Because I certainly don't remember that being raised in the Commons.

On a sidenote: do you realise your reasoning also justifies the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939? Or, for that matter, an invasion of Poland by just about any of its neighbours. The post-Versailles Poland was very belligerent indeed towards its neighbours, putting Saddam's Iraq to shame.

[Papewaio]

Is it possible to live in manner that is worse then death?

How many of his offspring survived?

How pitiful did he look in his white y-fronts?

I would have chosen life in prison for him working as a swine herder.

=][=

Since they went down the execution path they should have fully implemented it.

After hanging him they should have cremated his body and scattered it to the winds. No site for mourning, no site of rallying of militia around a so called martyr.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

Can you show where this was given as one of the justifications put forward to Congress? Because I certainly don't remember that being raised in the Commons.

On a sidenote: do you realise your reasoning also justifies the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939? Or, for that matter, an invasion of Poland by just about any of its neighbours. The post-Versailles Poland was very belligerent indeed towards its neighbours, putting Saddam's Iraq to shame.

Stalin was a dictator. He did invade Poland, but no one wanted to mess with the USSR.

My reasoning is saying that Saddam was a rutheless dictator and deserved to die.

[Bar Kochba]

Is it possible to live in manner that is worse then death?

I would have chosen life in prison for him working as a swine herder.




do they allow pigs in Iraq?

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

do they allow pigs in Iraq?

Saddam :beam:

[Pannonian]

Stalin was a dictator. He did invade Poland, but no one wanted to mess with the USSR.

Did you miss the point that Poland invaded the newborn USSR in the early 1920s? You said that we were right to invade Iraq because Iraq invaded Kuwait in the early 1990s. By that reasoning, Stalin was even more right to invade Poland in 1939, since his country was the original victim.

Also, can you provide proof as I had asked for, that part of the rationale for the Iraq war as presented to the US Congress in 2003 was Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990?



My reasoning is saying that Saddam was a rutheless dictator and deserved to die.
If that's the reasoning politicians act by, no wonder Iraq is going to the dogs.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

Did you miss the point that Poland invaded the newborn USSR in the early 1920s? You said that we were right to invade Iraq because Iraq invaded Kuwait in the early 1990s. By that reasoning, Stalin was even more right to invade Poland in 1939, since his country was the original victim.

Also, can you provide proof as I had asked for, that part of the rationale for the Iraq war as presented to the US Congress in 2003 was Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990?


If that's the reasoning politicians act by, no wonder Iraq is going to the dogs.

Why the hell is Stalin part of this?

Anyway, so we should've just let Iraq take Kuwait? Saddam would think he could invade anyone he pleased. I don't know what goes on in American Congress so I don't know. Again, should the world just have let Iraq take Kuwait?

[Geoffrey S]

No, Saddam shouldn't have been allowed to take Kuwait in 1990. No, that had nothing to do with ousting Saddam from power in 2003.

[Pannonian]

Why the hell is Stalin part of this?

I thought your reasoning regarding Iraq/Kuwait and 2003 was pretty offbeat, so I tried to find a well-known recent parallel. Unfortunately the example I chose was a bit too logical compared with the original.



Anyway, so we should've just let Iraq take Kuwait? Saddam would think he could invade anyone he pleased. I don't know what goes on in American Congress so I don't know. Again, should the world just have let Iraq take Kuwait?
Err, didn't you notice? We had a war in 1991, in which Iraqi troops were conclusively expelled from Kuwait. I haven't noticed any change in that condition since then, or did I miss something?

Since you don't know much about the US Congress, my original request may have been a bit unfair. So let's change it a little. I guess you're Greek, so was the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 cited as one of the reasons why Greece had to join the invasion of Iraq in 2003? Has the Greek parliament changed its mind over its decision to join the Iraqi operation? Have you received any paybacks for the risks your brave troops face on a daily basis in Iraq? Has Muslim terrorism spiked since you sent troops to Iraq?

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

No, Saddam shouldn't have been allowed to take Kuwait in 1990. No, that had nothing to do with ousting Saddam from power in 2003.

But wasn't that the final straw to the US and UK? They simply had enough of it, and wanted him out.

[Pannonian]

But wasn't that the final straw to the US and UK? They simply had enough of it, and wanted him out.
The UK wanted nothing to do with any Iraq war.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

It's obvious this is getting no where, and I'm not going to exhaust my opinions. Good day

[Pannonian]

It's obvious this is getting no where, and I'm not going to exhaust my opinions. Good day
So you won't debate with someone because they don't have the same view as you? Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice. (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1370484&postcount=22)

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

So you won't debate with someone because they don't have the same view as you? Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice. (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1370484&postcount=22)

No, it's because I'm trying to help you understand my point, but it seems you can't and start rambling off about Stalin and Poland.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

Nice try using my words against me, though.

[Pannonian]

No, it's because I'm trying to help you understand my point, but it seems you can't and start rambling off about Stalin and Poland.
So let's ignore that comparison, and return to my request for evidence that your parliament cited Kuwait 1990 as a justification for Iraq 2003. Since you admit to an ignorance about the American Congress, and your posts elsewhere suggest you are Greek, I have asked for evidence that the Greek parliament considered Kuwait 1990 as one of the reasons why it should join Iraq 2003. Can you provide any cites?

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

So let's ignore that comparison, and return to my request for evidence that your parliament cited Kuwait 1990 as a justification for Iraq 2003. Since you admit to an ignorance about the American Congress, and your posts elsewhere suggest you are Greek, I have asked for evidence that the Greek parliament considered Kuwait 1990 as one of the reasons why it should join Iraq 2003. Can you provide any cites?

Hmmm even though this isn't about Greece?

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

So, yet again, you are saying things completely beside the point.

[Pannonian]

Hmmm even though this isn't about Greece?
We're talking about justification for the war, since you brought up Kuwait in the first place. Since you don't appear to be familiar with the US Congress, and I certainly don't remember Kuwait being cited in Commons debates, I figured you would be more familiar with your own national assembly that makes such decisions. I'm trying to be reasonable here, in framing the question to suit your knowledge. So, was Kuwait mentioned in the debates that led to your country deciding to join the Iraq war?

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

Too bad Greece never was part of the Iraq War

https://img223.imageshack.us/img223/7197/coalitionofthewillingoryn1.png (https://imageshack.us)

This is basically the nations who are part of the war

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

Sorry, those were the original supporters.

Here are the current countries with military in Iraq

https://img412.imageshack.us/img412/4851/multinationalforceinirafw7.png (https://imageshack.us)

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

The Trial was Stupid. you Guys think it was Stupid Also eh? Well I give you a really fair trial


Why didn't they just toss a hand greande down in that damn hole of his, or wait, better yet, for a quick and painless death, why didn't they just bring him up, shot him in the head, and stick him in the hole?

That right there, ladies and Gentlemen, is the fairest trial you could give him (and proably a warning point for me,but I don't care).


and Edzy, what do you think we should have done with him? Life in Prision? Come on man, don't make me laugh..

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

The Trial was Stupid. you Guys think it was Stupid Also eh? Well I give you a really fair trial


Why didn't they just toss a hand greande down in that damn hole of his, or wait, better yet, for a quick and painless death, why didn't they just bring him up, shot him in the head, and stick him in the hole?

That right there, ladies and Gentlemen, is the fairest trial you could give him (and proably a warning point for me,but I don't care).


That works too.

[Pannonian]

Too bad Greece never was part of the Iraq War

This is basically the nations who are part of the war
So you think Kuwait was a valid reason for fighting Iraq in 2003, but your country hasn't experienced any of the consequences.

I don't recall the US Congress, representing the main contributor, nor the UK parliament, representing the main figleaf, ever citing that as a good reason for invading Iraq in 2003. My interpretation of that absence would be that, as the two main players, neither of them thought Kuwait 1990 could justify Iraq 2003. Perhaps you could make a better case than the elected representatives of the US and the UK?

[Tribesman]

Tribes, you making no sense. He killed people for no reason, or for the most idoitc reasons (or having you make idoitc knee jerk statements to irrate people). so please exlapin.

Awfully sorry there old boy , I thought I had given several examples in plain simple English as to why the content of your posts on this subject have been largely of a nonsensical variety .
Would you care to attempt the same ?
Or is it that you cannot quite manage to find nonsense in what I wrote on this subject?
If you cannot point out nonsense in what was written then it appears that you may just possibly be addressing the poster not the posts .
If you cannot point out some idoitc knee jerk statements then it would certainly appear that what you have done is what may be consideed as a rather pointless baseless personal rant .
Perhaps I am wrong , perhaps I have written nonsense , in the interests of debate could you please point it out , or point out that the criticisms I made of what you wrote are not valid .
If not then until you address the claims I made that what you wrote is nonsense then you really do not have anything to say .
Plain and simple(to borrow a phrase~;) )

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

So you think Kuwait was a valid reason for fighting Iraq in 2003, but your country hasn't experienced any of the consequences.

I don't recall the US Congress, representing the main contributor, nor the UK parliament, representing the main figleaf, ever citing that as a good reason for invading Iraq in 2003. My interpretation of that absence would be that, as the two main players, neither of them thought Kuwait 1990 could justify Iraq 2003. Perhaps you could make a better case than the elected representatives of the US and the UK?

As I have said, I'm not in the US or UK, I can't say. I think Saddam was a valid reason for 2003. I never said Kuwait was.

[Pannonian]

As I have said, I'm not in the US or UK, I can't say. I think Saddam was a valid reason for 2003. I never said Kuwait was.
I beg to differ.



Patriarch of Constantinople said: (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1371156&postcount=59)

2. He started the war. Invading Kuwait.

Seems pretty clear to me.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

I beg to differ.


Seems pretty clear to me.


Did I say the 2003 invasion?

[Pannonian]

Did I say the 2003 invasion?
Your subsequent comments indicated you were talking about the 2003 war, the ultimate result of which was Saddam's execution.



Patriarch of Constantinople said: (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1371235&postcount=69)
Geoffrey S wrote:
No, Saddam shouldn't have been allowed to take Kuwait in 1990. No, that had nothing to do with ousting Saddam from power in 2003.

But wasn't that the final straw to the US and UK? They simply had enough of it, and wanted him out.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

Your subsequent comments indicated you were talking about the 2003 war, the ultimate result of which was Saddam's execution.

Yes, but I said that the Invasion of Kuwait was the last straw, and they wanted Saddam gone.

[Pannonian]

Yes, but I said that the Invasion of Kuwait was the last straw, and they wanted Saddam gone.
The invasion of Kuwait in 1990 was the last straw, so they invaded Iraq in 2003?

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

The invasion of Kuwait in 1990 was the last straw, so they invaded Iraq in 2003?

Well, George Bush Sr. never capitalized on his victory, so that let Saddam back into power.

And also this is where I thought it was the last straw:


"This aggression will not stand, this is not a war for oil. This is war against aggression

[Pannonian]

Well, George Bush Sr. never capitalized on his victory, so that let Saddam back into power.

And also this is where I thought it was the last straw:



"This aggression will not stand, this is not a war for oil. This is war against aggression.


Wasn't Bush Sr adamant about limiting his objective to expelling Iraq from Kuwait? IIRC something about, if he pushed on to Baghdad, he'd be overstepping the bounds of his mandate against Iraqi aggression, and the US would still be occupying Iraq a decade later. His chief general, Colin Powell, was equally adamant about there being an end in sight for the operation. The commander in charge of the actual operation, Norman Schwarzkopf, was equally insistent that the US should not allow itself to be overextended and get bogged down in a war that would never end. So the top 3 personnel involved in the 1991 war were quite sure the war against Iraqi aggression ended in 1991 with complete success when Iraqi troops were expelled from Kuwait. The top 3 personnel involved in the 1991 war also specifically warned against the type of campaign launched in 2003.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

Wasn't Bush Sr adamant about limiting his objective to expelling Iraq from Kuwait? IIRC something about, if he pushed on to Baghdad, he'd be overstepping the bounds of his mandate against Iraqi aggression, and the US would still be occupying Iraq a decade later. His chief general, Colin Powell, was equally adamant about there being an end in sight for the operation. The commander in charge of the actual operation, Norman Schwarzkopf, was equally insistent that the US should not allow itself to be overextended and get bogged down in a war that would never end. So the top 3 personnel involved in the 1991 war were quite sure the war against Iraqi aggression ended in 1991 with complete success when Iraqi troops were expelled from Kuwait. The top 3 personnel involved in the 1991 war also specifically warned against the type of campaign launched in 2003.

that's kind of what I meant. Him not marching on baghdad set the stage for the 2003 invasion.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Temp removed pending talk with author.~Kukri


Very Well said Patriach. you one of the few people I actually agree with 100%..

[Yun Dog]

Late arrival on this issue

just some thoughts/emotions

To me, he (Saddam) appeared to carry himself with dignity and calm courage - in contrast to his executors who appeared barbaric and freitend

For all the "we trying to save democracy" BS - in reality we are replacing one despot with another. We take out Saddam and put in a Shiite (Iranian) backed government which is busying itself with paying back old scores and ethincally cleansing the Sunnis.

I have this wierd post 9/11 feeling again - like the world has just gone backwards - we decend further into the new dark age.

I fully understand and sympathise that Suddams victims should have their pound of flesh, but there seems to be other agendas attached to this.

For the record Im not against the death penalty - as hundreds of people die every day through starvation, disease and war, many of whom deserve to live - and yet those undeserving wolves that prey on our weak and helpless - get preserved, and protected - why - there are good people in this world that would give anything even to be in prison in the first world - so desperate are they.

My question is since Saddam has been put to death - because he was such a genocidal madman - what punishment for those responsible for putting Saddam there - and supplying him with weapons - surely they must also be guilty by association - aiding and abeting. Of coarse that would involve prosecting some senior US and UK politicians.

And while we are putting people to death for warcrimes - lets not forget the ones who Fire Bombed Dresden, and wiped out millions of innocent women and children in the blink of an eye in Hiroshima and Nagasaki - why arnt they on trial? Until that day - how dare we pass judgement on others.

If the west ever loses domination of the globe - it will be interesting to see who the other side puts on trial for war crimes. Im confused - are we the good guys or the bad guys... or is it irrelevent. This is our version of Harry potter/lord of the rings/ oops I mean History of the World, and the villians of the story need to have unpleasant endings to sate the audiences desire to feel that good triumphs over evil. Or at least the side we are made to believe .. is good.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

To me, he (Saddam) appeared to carry himself with dignity and calm courage - in contrast to his executors who appeared barbaric and freitend

The condemned seem to fall into three categories: those who whine/bemoan their fate, those who deal with it calmly, and those who sneer at their executioners. Apparently Saddam was (mostly) in the calm category.


For all the "we trying to save democracy" BS - in reality we are replacing one despot with another. We take out Saddam and put in a Shiite (Iranian) backed government which is busying itself with paying back old scores and ethincally cleansing the Sunnis.

No, that is not AT ALL, what the US and our coalition are seeking for Iraq. Sadly, we may end up with just the kind of regime your describe, but our goal has been to establish a comparatively secular (by M.E. standards) democratic republic. Mind you, our efforts to bring this about could have been a good deal better than they have been. It may even be that the moment for such has passed (Yes, I know, Tribesy, you view it as never having existed, I'll just stipulate that).


I have this wierd post 9/11 feeling again - like the world has just gone backwards - we decend further into the new dark age.

Then you are more of an optimist than I. I view humanity's progress beyond warlordism/tribalism as the historical abberations. Sadly, I think such things as you highlight to be more of a regression toward the norm.


My question is since Saddam has been put to death - because he was such a genocidal madman - what punishment for those responsible for putting Saddam there - and supplying him with weapons - surely they must also be guilty by association - aiding and abeting. Of coarse that would involve prosecting some senior US and UK politicians.

This is a rather difficult standard to uphold. As an analogy, this approach would make me responsible by "association" for any fraud perpetrated by one of my former public speaking students, since I am the person who will have contributed to their ability to swindle someone. Should I be prosecuted? I think you would be hard-pressed to find evidence that any of the US/UK political leadership knowingly gave Saddam the tools to perpetrate crimes against humanity. Was Saddam aided by the USA and others in his war against Iran? Yes. Was this morally correct? Perspectives will vary, but a good case that it was not could be argued. Did this support make those leaders responsible for every subsequent action taken by Saddam? I think not.


And while we are putting people to death for warcrimes - lets not forget the ones who Fire Bombed Dresden, and wiped out millions of innocent women and children in the blink of an eye in Hiroshima and Nagasaki - why arnt they on trial? Until that day - how dare we pass judgement on others.

The direct death toll from all three cities combined was less than half a million persons. Even considering deaths from lingering radiation effect -- an element not fully understood by those employing the weapons -- multiple millions of casualties is an exaggeration.

In answer to your question, had those attacks occurred today, it is likely that the responsible decision makers would be on trial. The standards of that era regarding the "validity" of such targets were a good deal different than those employed now.


If the west ever loses domination of the globe - it will be interesting to see who the other side puts on trial for war crimes. Im confused - are we the good guys or the bad guys... or is it irrelevent. This is our version of Harry potter/lord of the rings/ oops I mean History of the World, and the villians of the story need to have unpleasant endings to sate the audiences desire to feel that good triumphs over evil. Or at least the side we are made to believe .. is good.

Military and political domination by the West is already a thing of the past. If the world is relying on the USA to dominate it, they will quickly note that we are pretty lousy at putting a boot on someone's neck. Economic and Cultural/Communication dominance continues, but that too is progressively less evident with each passing year. If you really believe a war of vengeance is in the offing for the past "sins" of the West, then "timing issues" suggest you will have the joy of viewing your predictions come true.

Wanting to be on the "side of the angels" and craving the mental simplicity of the enemy being "bad," is a pretty natural inclination with a long history. Read Twain's "War Prayer" -- this issue is one of long standing.

[Major Robert Dump]

I heard he requested corn dogs for his last meal.

[Adrian II]

I heard he requested corn dogs for his last meal.I hear the Iraqi government has ordered an 'inquiry' into the circumstances of its own execution of Saddam Hussein.

It seems that they have achieved a near-impossible feat: they have made people all over the world feel a certain sympathy or respect for the man in view of his dignified behaviour during his last moments, as opposed to the mob that executed him.

Will someone stop this foul movie called 'Iraq' and switch on the lights, please. I think we can all use a drink.

[Tribesman]

I think you would be hard-pressed to find evidence that any of the US/UK political leadership knowingly gave Saddam the tools to perpetrate crimes against humanity.
True , it would be very hard to find evidence of any complicity in the crimes .
Well apart from things like the Anfal campaign , gassing at halabja ,the air attacks on the marsh arabs after the liberation of Kuwait where it is very easy to find evidence .
Which is why they only tried Saddam for a relatively small crime (compared to many he committed) under a law that was made by the CPA and two Iraqi laws that were rewritten by the CPA .

[Adrian II]

Well apart from things like the Anfal campaign , gassing at halabja ,the air attacks on the marsh arabs after the liberation of Kuwait where it is very easy to find evidence .Alan Friedman's Spider's Web: Bush, Saddam, Thatcher & the Decade of Deceit (1999) would be a good start. :yes:

[Cronos Impera]

Firstly:
Bad timing ( second day of the Hajj isn't exactly the best day for an execution)
Secondly:
Amateur excutioners (even Ceausescu had a better execution squad than Saddam)

[Somebody Else]

Not that I've ever really thought much about executing people before... but I'm wondering, in what way exactly is the world a better place now that we've snuffed Saddam out?

I was disgusted to see people cheering at his execution. But that's a personal opinion, and not something to base an argument on.

N.B. Like some others, I am no hippy. Hells, I want to join the army. But I do have a problem with killing people when there's another option. I've never heard of someone being more useful dead than alive. (except maybe here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=76293))

[Lorenzo_H]

Is there a link to the full video of Saddam being hung?

[Ser Clegane]

Is there a link to the full video of Saddam being hung?

Please note that we will not accept links to execution videos here.
Please refrain from asking for such links being posted.

Thanks

Ser Clegane

[yesdachi]

The entire trial thru execution has been a debacle. I expected a mess for the trial but I thought they could at least make a decent, organized execution, but no, it was a mess. They should have just marched him into the street and shot him in the head while waving hate banners behind him chanting something ridiculous. Way to show the world how developed you are! What could have been a great piece of PR turned into one step forward and 100 steps back.

[Vuk]

Saddam's execution was a step in the right direction no matter how poorly done. All we need to do now is catch 'ol Bin Laden.
Burn Baby Burn!!
(meant in the best possible way of course :D)

[Ser Clegane]

All we need to do now is catch 'ol Bin Laden.
"All"?

And then ... what?

[Vuk]

"All"?

And then ... what?

lol, I didn't literally mean "all". I meant that that was something that we needed to do however.
We need to kill every terrorist on earth imho. For now though, Saddam and Bin Laden is a good start :D.

[Tribesman]

We need to kill every terrorist on earth imho.
Interesting , but surely we would also have to kill every poitician or military figure that supports or funds terrorism aswell .
Still I suppose its a good as reason as any for you to clean out your government and get a new one Vuk .:juggle2:



Saddam's execution was a step in the right direction no matter how poorly done.
Hmmmmm , that seems at odds with the rather sensible post before.....

What could have been a great piece of PR turned into one step forward and 100 steps back.
So Vuk do you hold that you are correct and one step forwards is good , irelevant of how far back you step at the same time ?

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

"All"?

And then ... what?



Excute Him. What else we suppose to do with him:dizzy2: ??

[nokhor]

i'm kinda ambivalent on one aspect of this topic, which is the idea that sadaam's execution should have been done in a nice clinical whitewashed setting. why? we are talking about killing someone and killing someone whether it's murder or execution is and should be a repugnant messy affair. i doubt a violent death is ever 'clean' but we would like to believe that it can be so we can avoid the ugliness associated with it. so we get the medical professionals and the white walled room and everything is serene, and all that is not for the person about to be executed, why do they care? they're about to die, it's for the rest of us so we don't feel as bad or guilty that we're doing it. and i am certainly guilty of that belief. so i say that if we are going to execute someone we should leave it dirty and messy and get rid of the hypocricy of a 'clean' execution because that's just done to assuage our feelings. and for the record i supported sadaam's execution and still do, though the trial was a farce, and Justice was denied for all the other crimes that he commited, and didn't get to face judgement for.

[Tribesman]

Excute Him. What else we suppose to do with him :dizzy2: ??

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Tom Cruise has a similar problem , things tend to go over his head .

[Ser Clegane]

Excute Him. What else we suppose to do with him
Apparently the gist of my question was lost here ... NM ...

[PanzerJaeger]

And while we are putting people to death for warcrimes - lets not forget the ones who Fire Bombed Dresden, and wiped out millions of innocent women and children in the blink of an eye in Hiroshima and Nagasaki - why arnt they on trial? Until that day - how dare we pass judgement on others.

Well, first of all, they are probably dead. Second, your comparison has about as much validity as Saddam's trial. :laugh4:

[yesdachi]

Well, first of all, they are probably dead. Second, your comparison has about as much validity as Saddam's trial. :laugh4:
2007 is here and PJ is back! :beam:

[BigTex]

Excute Him. What else we suppose to do with him:dizzy2: ??

No we do not excute him. Executing him will create a martyr. We need to put that vile piece of excriment in guantanimo for life. Let him die misreably decades from now, forgoten, and worthless in nothing more then rags. Bin Laden needs to live a long, horrible life, executing him is too easy.

I think Ser Clegane was asking what do we do after we catch him. We would have gotten involved in lots of countries, cuased alot of chaos for one man. His capture will spark lots of violence throughout the world. His execution would cause the destruction of some governments. What we do after we have cuaght him or if we senslessly kill him is as important as capturing the man in the first place. Just killing him will breed more Bin Laden's if we are not careful.

[PanzerJaeger]

2007 is here and PJ is back! :beam:

~:wave:

New Year's Resolution: When in doubt, especially regarding teh muslims, keep my big mouth shut. :laugh4:

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

No we do not excute him. Executing him will create a martyr. We need to put that vile piece of excriment in guantanimo for life. Let him die misreably decades from now, forgoten, and worthless in nothing more then rags. Bin Laden needs to live a long, horrible life, executing him is too easy.

I think Ser Clegane was asking what do we do after we catch him. We would have gotten involved in lots of countries, cuased alot of chaos for one man. His capture will spark lots of violence throughout the world. His execution would cause the destruction of some governments. What we do after we have cuaght him or if we senslessly kill him is as important as capturing the man in the first place. Just killing him will breed more Bin Laden's if we are not careful.

Posts like these Ticks me off.

I am saying one last piece about this, and I'm done.


Killing Him is the best thing we could have done. Why the hell,should we keep him in Jail for Life? Would you like to see someone, who kill half your family, sit in jail for the rest of his life, but you have to watch him LIVE in Jail, while your family is dead. Use your Heads. Killing Him was and is the ONLY Option we had.

Killing Osama is also the only option we have. Please Tex and everyone else, please use logcial.





"And while we are putting people to death for warcrimes - lets not forget the ones who Fire Bombed Dresden, and wiped out millions of innocent women and children in the blink of an eye in Hiroshima and Nagasaki - why arnt they on trial? Until that day - how dare we pass judgement on others."



That was War. People Die in Wars. Don't like It? Tough. Deal with it,ad stop crying.

[BigTex]

Killing Him is the best thing we could have done. Why the hell,should we keep him in Jail for Life? Would you like to see someone, who kill half your family, sit in jail for the rest of his life, but you have to watch him LIVE in Jail, while your family is dead. My god, put aside your people's Devout Reglious Beflies and your Martyr Bullshit, Use your Heads. Killing Him was and is the ONLY Option we had.

Killing Osama is also the only option we have. Please Tex and everyone else, please use logcial.

Seeking revenge regardless of the outcome is idoicy. Killing him will destroy the pakistani government, the new one will not be friendly to us. Killing him will more then likely destroy the current Saudi government. Killing him will cause huge amounts of deaths in the judea region. Puting him in guantanimo for life is a darn better prospect. He wont be martyred, he will sit there and rot away. Living proof of what will happen to you if you attack us.

Don't tell me to use logic when your post consists of nothing but seeking revenge. Consider the consequences for killing such a man before screaming "off with his head!".

[Tribesman]

Please Tex and everyone else, please use logcial.


...........:laugh4:


New Year's Resolution: When in doubt, especially regarding teh muslims, keep my big mouth shut.
When it doubt , especialy regarding your ...................... instead of a games forum :yes:

[Hosakawa Tito]

Please... a games forum :yes:

:no:

[AntiochusIII]

I can't believe how much fanfare this bloody thing has created, even at the org.

Having thus rudely intruded upon this thread and imply that some of its participators are acting like a bunch of big idiots (no names, nope), I shall therefore retreat and leave to you my worthless non-contribution with a little note that I'm gonna stay away and far from it all 'til the dead man's corpse is worm food no longer.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

I can't believe how much fanfare this bloody thing has created, even at the org.

Having thus rudely intruded upon this thread and imply that some of its participators are acting like a bunch of big idiots (no names, nope), I shall therefore retreat and leave to you my worthless non-contribution with a little note that I'm gonna stay away and far from it all 'til the dead man's corpse is worm food no longer.


Why post, isn't that spam :beam:?

[Navaros]

This illegal "execution" was one of the most disgusting things I've ever seen.

I saw footage on the news showing Saddam's mutilated corpse with his head twisted in such a perverse way that could not have been achieved without his neck being broken. Extremely sick.

This "execution" is definitely on par with any of the terrorists' murder films to have come out. ~:shock:

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Navaros, tell me, are mass graves ok to see? Aren't Saddam's Soliders shooting people in the back of the head sick? What comes around goes around. If I was Saddam, I would take my punishment, no matter how sick it would be, because if I did that, I would derserve that punishment. you may disagree of course,not stoping you guys, but that what I think.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

Navaros, tell me, are mass graves ok to see? Aren't Saddam's Soliders shooting people in the back of the head sick? What comes around goes around. If I was Saddam, I would take my punishment, no matter how sick it would be, because if I did that, I would derserve that punishment. you may disagree of course,not stoping you guys, but that what I think.

Agreed.

But then again, gassing people and shooting them in the head is way better than a hanging :thumbsdown:

[Hosakawa Tito]

If one is so outraged/sickened/disgusted by such a video, why watch it? My tv has a channel selector and an off switch; I refuse to watch this. I've seen enough dead bodies lately, and don't need to see any more.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

If one is so outraged/sickened/disgusted by such a video, why watch it? My tv has a channel selector and an off switch; I refuse to watch this. I've seen enough dead bodies lately, and don't need to see any more.

That's what I never get.

"OMG THEY KILLED HIM! OH I GOT TO PROTEST AFTER I WATCH IT AGAIN!"

[Seamus Fermanagh]

This illegal "execution" was one of the most disgusting things I've ever seen.

I saw footage on the news showing Saddam's mutilated corpse with his head twisted in such a perverse way that could not have been achieved without his neck being broken. Extremely sick.

This "execution" is definitely on par with any of the terrorists' murder films to have come out. ~:shock:

Actually, I believe that a clean neck break is the preferred result of a hanging. Otherwise the person being executed suffers an even more prolonged and painful death from slow stragulation. I haven't seen the vid, but hope that it was relatively quick for him.

Though I oppose the death penalty, I am surprised at your characterization of this execution as illegal. Execution has always been considered to be among the powers reserved to a polis.

Sadly, you are correct in citing a degree of parallel with the murder films authored by terrorists. These snippets of film have become part of the "hearts and minds" battle that comprises one element of this struggle.

Even more sadly, there is a broad "market" for such videos -- for the same reason that traffic jams result from people rubbernecking at an accident scene. Not the nicest aspect of human curiosity.

[PanzerJaeger]

Navaros is right in that the execution was eerily similar to a cheap, grainy, terrorist video.

They should have done it a little more professionally - or a lot more. Its done now, though. :shrug:

[JimBob]

I think the main sticking point here is a matter of priorities. So a question. What is worse dying or living a life that is useless and impotent.

That said I hope we can all agree that all humans have an intrinsic value no matter what they do.

[Fragony]

This illegal "execution" was one of the most disgusting things I've ever seen.

I saw footage on the news showing Saddam's mutilated corpse with his head twisted in such a perverse way that could not have been achieved without his neck being broken. Extremely sick.

This "execution" is definitely on par with any of the terrorists' murder films to have come out. ~:shock:

Well that's what a hanging does, breaks your neck and makes you lose control of your bodily functions. Agree about the movie, especially with sounds it's more like Nick Berg having his head cut of. They could have done it with more dignity, now they allowed him to go like a martyr.

[Navaros]

If one is so outraged/sickened/disgusted by such a video, why watch it? My tv has a channel selector and an off switch; I refuse to watch this. I've seen enough dead bodies lately, and don't need to see any more.

Well, the station I was watching it on didn't give a warning beforehand or say anything even remotely like: "We are about to show you the mutilated corpse of Saddam with his head twisted in such a sickeningly perverse way that could only ever be achieved with a broken neck."

Rather, they just showed it.

In any case refusing to see it would not lessen the reality that what was done to Saddam was a crime against humanity that should never have happened.


Navaros, tell me, are mass graves ok to see? Aren't Saddam's Soliders shooting people in the back of the head sick? What comes around goes around. If I was Saddam, I would take my punishment, no matter how sick it would be, because if I did that, I would derserve that punishment. you may disagree of course,not stoping you guys, but that what I think

I'm no Saddam expert, but from the all the reports I've seen that mention Saddam's alleged crimes, he only ever killed people in self defense because they tried to kill him first. The secret service and FBI and CIA does the same thing to the people who try to kill USA's President.


Though I oppose the death penalty, I am surprised at your characterization of this execution as illegal. Execution has always been considered to be among the powers reserved to a polis

There are/were laws in Iraq's constitution that the President of Iraq can do anything that Saddam did and not be charged for it. Even if the puppet government of Iraq claims to have removed the laws, the "new laws" cannot be retroactively applied to anything Saddam did while he was President of Iraq. Therefore the execution was illegal by any reasonable stretch. Not to mention the farce instead of a trial he got or the illegal invasion of Iraq in the first place.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I'm no Saddam expert, but from the all the reports I've seen that mention Saddam's alleged crimes, he only ever killed people in self defense because they tried to kill him first. The secret service and FBI and CIA does the same thing to the people who try to kill USA's President.

You need to read more widely. Saddam was a brutal murderer and killed many thousands of innocents. This is not seriously in doubt from any reputable source. Since you are a supporter of the Iranian regime, I would imagine you would disapprove of Saddam's vicious and unwarranted attack on that country?


There are/were laws in Iraq's constitution that the President of Iraq can do anything that Saddam did and not be charged for it. Even if the puppet government of Iraq claims to have removed the laws, the "new laws" cannot be retroactively applied to anything Saddam did while he was President of Iraq. Therefore the execution was illegal by any reasonable stretch. Not to mention the farce instead of a trial he got or the illegal invasion of Iraq in the first place.

This contention was in fact the main reason for a proper trial. Were Saddam's actions, however brutal, given legality because he was head of state? As you imply, many other leaders have taken decisions that have led to death and suffering, yet are not charged. Apart from the "winner sets the rules" argument, the answer to this is that we have a concept of international law, which seeks to hold leaders to a higher moral account. This has increasingly challenged the notion of blanket immunity for state leaders.

It is also why Saddam should have faced trial on wider charges than he did, for the charge he was sentenced on would almost certainly have failed in a fair court because of the "valid actions of head of state" argument. As others have noted, charges brought under international law would have given him a chance to reveal what arrangements he had with his previous "friends" which was deemed undesireable.

Therein lies the farce associated with this trial, not its outcome.

It is perhaps ironic in the light of your post, that in fact the President of Iraq, Jalal Talebani is opposed to the death penalty and was sidelined when he vacillated over the signing of the death warrant. Under Iraqi law, the president's refusal to sign would not have stopped the execution, but it would have been necessary to delay it for the full thirty days after appeal before his permission was no longer required. By rushing the execution without Talebani's signature, the government broke their own constitution.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It is perhaps ironic in the light of your post, that in fact the President of Iraq, Jalal Talebani is opposed to the death penalty and was sidelined when he vacillated over the signing of the death warrant. Under Iraqi law, the president's refusal to sign would not have stopped the execution, but it would have been necessary to delay it for the full thirty days after appeal before his permission was no longer required. By rushing the execution without Talebani's signature, the government broke their own constitution.

Which is why authorities in the USA urged the delay of the execution by Iraq, so as not to contravene the Iraqi Constitution.

However, if Navaros is correct as to the existence of laws effectively rendering Saddam "above the law" in his own state, then Iraq may have been on poor legal ground. This would have made the Hague the better venue, as the whole point of that court is the "higher standards" argument you make.

Navaros, be careful when arguing legalities. The US-led invasion of Iraq was a "legal" response to Saddam's refusal to adhere to the full text of aggreements made in ending the Kuwait incursion. In strict legal terms, by failing to adhere to the agreements, Saddam returned the USA to a legal and previously authorized use of force against his regime. Yes, the UN refused to support the action, Yes, the majority of world governments were opposed to such an action, and Yes, the return to force for removing Saddam guaranteed Iraqi civilian deaths that many think need not have occurred. All points of consideration, but irrelevant in "strictly" legal terms.

You can't argue strict legalism on one hand without accepting the strict legalism on the other -- poor argument strategy.

[Dâriûsh]

Official arrested over Saddam video (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/DDEA9B62-B8BB-4B92-8178-AFCB0654E9C6.htm)


The person believed to have recorded Saddam Hussein's execution on a mobile phone has been arrested.


An adviser to Nuri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, did not identify the person. But he said it was "an official who supervised the execution" and who is "now under investigation".


At first it seems to point to the National Security Adviser Muwaffaq al-Rubayi. But it might as well be National Assembly member Sami al-Askari (a good chum of Nouri al-Maliki), who was also present.

[Lemur]

A little George Orwell (http://www.george-orwell.org/Revenge_is_Sour/0.html) to put things in perspective:


Properly speaking, there is no such thing as revenge. Revenge is an act which you want to commit when you are powerless and because you are powerless: as soon as the sense of impotence is removed, the desire evaporates also.

Who would not have jumped for joy, in 1940, at the thought of seeing S.S. officers kicked and humiliated? But when the thing becomes possible, it is merely pathetic and disgusting. It is said that when Mussolini's corpse was exhibited in public, an old woman drew a revolver and fired five shots into it, exclaiming, "Those are for my five sons!" It is the kind of story that the newspapers make up, but it might be true. I wonder how much satisfaction she got out of those five shots, which, doubtless, she had dreamed years earlier of firing. The condition of her being able to get near enough to Mussolini to shoot at him was that he should be a corpse.

[Slyspy]

Good quote Lemur.

[Yun Dog]

A little George Orwell (http://www.george-orwell.org/Revenge_is_Sour/0.html) to put things in perspective:


Properly speaking, there is no such thing as revenge. Revenge is an act which you want to commit when you are powerless and because you are powerless: as soon as the sense of impotence is removed, the desire evaporates also.

Who would not have jumped for joy, in 1940, at the thought of seeing S.S. officers kicked and humiliated? But when the thing becomes possible, it is merely pathetic and disgusting. It is said that when Mussolini's corpse was exhibited in public, an old woman drew a revolver and fired five shots into it, exclaiming, "Those are for my five sons!" It is the kind of story that the newspapers make up, but it might be true. I wonder how much satisfaction she got out of those five shots, which, doubtless, she had dreamed years earlier of firing. The condition of her being able to get near enough to Mussolini to shoot at him was that he should be a corpse.

well said

so then this begs the question - revenge or fear - fear that if they did not kill him quickly - it left the door open for his return in the ensuing chaos to come.

[Mooks]

Navaros is right in that the execution was eerily similar to a cheap, grainy, terrorist video.

They should have done it a little more professionally - or a lot more. Its done now, though. :shrug:

How exactly could they have done it more professionally? Do you really need to be a proffessional to execute someone?

O O I got it, they should all wear nice tuxedos and with lit candles all around the room.

[Devastatin Dave]

Just stopped by to say that the Saddam video provided me with one of the best moments of my life. See you guys around......:laugh4: :2thumbsup:

Moderator note: heavily edited by me. Glad you stopped by, Dave. ~Kukri.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

Just stopped by to say that the Saddam video provided me with one of the best moments of my life. See you guys around......:laugh4: :2thumbsup:

Moderator note: heavily edited by me. Glad you stopped by, Dave. ~Kukri.


Awwww, it was edited by Kukri. Dam.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I want to have a go with a fourth thread, because the execution has created a strong, negative, feeling in me that I don't think has been articulated so far.

When I first realised that Saddam was likely to be executed - long ago, at the start of his trial - I had mixed feelings. I could see the Nuremburg analogy and I reviled the man. But confronting the reality has hardened my view against it. Seeing an old man with a noose around his neck, surrounded by hooded executioners, is a disturbing image. It reminds me of those awful "snuff" videos of the terrorists and their soon to be beheaded orange clothed prisoners. It invokes pity and sadness because it shows a man about to die. And it angers me because my government (the UK) has been complicit in what led up to it and because it lowers "our side" to a level perilously close to that of Saddam and the jihadi terrorists. I would like to say that we don't kill people in cold blood, that we don't torture, that we don't deprive people of liberty for years without trial. But I can't.

I am against capital punishment and in essence, the issue of capital punishment is almost all this case boils down to. But, like most red blooded people, I can momentarily waiver in my opposition to the death penalty when faced with a specific heinous crime or monstrous criminal. Yet, somehow, Saddam's case just reinforced my opposition to any executions.

This is despite my firm belief that Saddam was a gangster and a particularly murderous one. And I have no reasonable doubt that he committed the crime for which he was executed, as well as many more.

But there is just something repellant in coldly taking a helpless man's life. If in war, an enemy soldier is pointing a gun at you, I would have no hesitation in saying kill him. I am not a pacifist. But to take a man's life when there is a simple non-violent alternative (life imprisonment) just seems wrong. I know I can't persuade anyone of that view - it's axiomatic; you either share it or you do not. A life has an instrinsic value, whether it's that of an old mass murderer in a cell, or a newborn baby in Iraq. Taking it unnecessarily seems disrespectful of humanity, malign and I want to say devoid of love, to use the language probably derived my Christian upbringing.

I am generally suspicious of "slippery slope" arguments, but they do seem to apply here. Once you start killing people in cold blood, it becomes easier to contemplate launching a missile into an Al Jahazeera office because you don't like their message, taking a few captured insurgents round the back to be summarily executed or poisoning a dissident who is agitating against you. Executions seem to entail a state sponsored level of brutality that weaken our sensibilities and defenses against lethal abuses of state power.

Will there be an instrumental benefit in having taken Saddam's life? To be honest, I don't really care. That's not the point. You could make arguments either way, although it does not seem auspicious (some Iraqi Sunnis apparently viewing the execution as a declaration of war).

Maybe we can't discuss this issue in a civilised manner. Maybe the battlelines are too clearly drawn. It's too much a case of "one for our side!" and "gotcha!". American soldiers are being killed every week in Iraq and Saddam, probably wrongly, is identified as the figurehead of the killers. (If it were OBL instead of Saddam on the gallows, I might momentarily waiver again. But after this experience, I doubt it.) But let's try to discuss it without flames or cheap shots.Sorry to only mention it this late into the thread, but this is actualy a brilliant post Econ. It expessses many of my feelings and doubts very well.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Just stopped by to say that the Saddam video provided me with one of the best moments of my life. See you guys around......:laugh4: :2thumbsup:

Moderator note: heavily edited by me. Glad you stopped by, Dave. ~Kukri.Dave! Good to see you. I miss your company here in the backroom.

I think I can imagine what your post must've read like before it was edited. I think we all missed out on another classic. :laugh4:

In fact, somebody should make something like a 'Dev Dave text generator'. Or maybe a 'Babeldave'. You know, you type a nuanced opinion, press enter, and then this program translates it into a classic Dave rant full of curses and obscene imagery and which automatically generates one warning point per twenty words.
Oh, the endless possibilities...:beam:

[caravel]

I'm in full agreement with econ21 and a few of the others. An execution like this will never solve anything. It won't miraculously make Iraq, or the world as a whole, a better place.

Sometimes you have to look at the bigger picture, how actions effect the wider population instead of giving in to those that were obviously after Saddam's blood from the start, and going after one man. All the reasoning that he was bad, and he deserved it and gassed civilians is now irrelevant to the current situation in Iraq and does nothing to solve it.

Pursuing this simplistic type of "eye for an eye" justice, where a marvel comic style villain (Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, etc) is seen as responsible for everything, and the toppling of this "mastermind" will end the worlds problems and see his supporters evaporate is rather naive. This is precisely what causes secularism oops sectarianism, makes a state factionalise and only breeds hatred providing a recruitment pool for militants. In Israel where palestinian terrorist leaders are bombed in civilian areas, killing civilians in the process, there is not much prospect of peace. It creates martyrs, resentment and deep hatred that spans generations of people. If the revenge/retribution cycle is to be broken, something or someone has to give.

The one thing that the Ba'athists did do, which the coalition forces are failing miserably to do, was keeping the various ethnic groups within Iraq and the two main religious groups coexisting somewhat peacefully. Taking a bad regime and kicking the legs from under, then starting again from the ground up, is not the answer. This has, quite predictably caused the country to splinter. Slow controlled change to a democracy is a better way, not a military operation lead by culturally incompatible foreign invaders, seeking to "install" democracy because they believe they know better. Often those that the foreign force place in power as their puppet regime are a lot cleverer than you think. And many of these are people that have been waiting in the wings for the old regime to fall, and are just as bad as people like Saddam. Fine examples of this were the so called "northern alliance" in Afghanistan.

[Pannonian]

The one thing that the Ba'athists did do, which the coalition forces are failing miserably to do, was keeping the various ethnic groups within Iraq and the two main religious groups coexisting somewhat peacefully. Taking a bad regime and kicking the legs from under, then starting again from the ground up, is not the answer. This has, quite predictably caused the country to splinter. Slow controlled change to a democracy is a better way, not a military operation lead by culturally incompatible foreign invaders, seeking to "install" democracy because they believe they know better. Often those that the foreign force place in power as their puppet regime are alot cleverer than you think. Amny of these are people that have been waiting in the wings for the old regime to fall, and are just as bad as people like Saddam. Fine examples of this were the so called "northern alliance" in Afghanistan.
What should have been done, if we were going to invade and topple Saddam whatever the case, we should have gone in and done so cleanly (which we did). Then we should have left the civil infrastructure in place (it's never a good idea to build from scratch), placing our own people at the top of strategically important areas (the military being the foremost). Then run the place as an old-fashioned colony, with a western strikeforce handy to intimidate the population, a native force beholden solely to the occupiers (pay them well, give their close relatives jobs/hold them as hostages), and regional princes jostling to become good collaborators. That's the imperial formula that has worked throughout history, that allowed the British to hold down India with fewer than 1 soldier per 1000 population.

Unfortunately, as I've said before, America's idealistic foundations prevent them from being the kind of devious bastards that can pull these schemes off successfully. Opting for the just rather than the pragmatic, they end up making things worse for everyone.

[Fragony]

Just stopped by to say that the Saddam video provided me with one of the best moments of my life. See you guys around......:laugh4: :2thumbsup:

Moderator note: heavily edited by me. Glad you stopped by, Dave. ~Kukri.

All just a joke to you huh, got a point but it's poorly executed

[Banquo's Ghost]

Pursuing this simplistic type of "eye for an eye" justice, where a marvel comic style villain (Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, etc) is seen as responsible for everything, and the toppling of this "mastermind" will end the worlds problems and see his supporters evaporate is rather naive. This is precisely what causes secularism, makes a state factionalise and only breeds hatred providing a recruitment pool for militants.

Hi Caravel. Did you mean sectarianism here?

:bow:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Unfortunately, as I've said before, America's idealistic foundations prevent them from being the kind of devious bastards that can pull these schemes off successfully. Opting for the just rather than the pragmatic, they end up making things worse for everyone.

Quite so. We really do fall for our own ideals. That's what led our neo-cons to convince themselves that Iraq would be the liberation of France redux. We're just not practical at putting a boot on someone's neck as an occupier. We really haven't done it much, historically, or we'd have removed our Amerind aboriginals far more efficiently and our Southern Border would be the current Northern border of Columbia.

The only time we ever made the subjugate, educate, liberate model work was in the Phillipines 1899-1913. Today's media would crucify the system employed too.

[caravel]

Hi Caravel. Did you mean sectarianism here?

:bow:
You know, what... I did. :laugh4:

Thanks for pointing that out. :bow:

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

I'm in full agreement with econ21 and a few of the others. An execution like this will never solve anything. It won't miraculously make Iraq, or the world as a whole, a better place.



but putting him in jail for Life would not have solve anything anyhow people.

[caravel]

but putting him in jail for Life would not have solve anything anyhow people.
Keeping Saddam locked away for life, preferably in exile, would have prevented any further polarisation of public opinion. The execution has removed him from the equation and completed that polarisation. Old allegances will be cast off and new ones formed. People will have to choose their loyalties. The shadow of Saddam gone, the extremists and militias will now increase in power as the people see and accept them as the successors to the ba'athists. The militias are hoping that, now that the US have seemingly "got their man" (because, after all it was the US that wanted him toppled and captured in the first place), they will grow tired of the whole mess and pull out altogether. This is their goal, to terrorise the coalition forces out of the country. Bush is losing favour, possibly because of the Iraq war and the death toll (particularly the death toll as regards US service personnel), and it may be that if the militants push hard enough, the coalition will pull out, allowing them to go at it tooth and nail in a bloody free for all until a victor emerges. This is what certain people are hoping for. With the coalition forces still there they can't realise these ambitions. The Shi'ites especially being the stronger faction know full well that a win is pretty much guaranteed to them if the US and the rest of the coalition pull out of Iraq.

[Redleg]

I had to shake my head at this story.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-hanging_05tex.ART.State.Edition1.3da24bb.html

[Lemur]

I'm not at all happy with where this is going. Saddam as a martyr? How messed up do you have to be to believe that? How messed up are we for allowing this to happen? What a mess. What a freakin' mess.


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/600_arabs.jpg

Images of Hanging Make Hussein a Martyr to Many

By HASSAN M. FATTAH
Published: January 6, 2007

BEIRUT, Lebanon, Jan. 5 — In the week since Saddam Hussein was hanged in an execution steeped in sectarian overtones, his public image in the Arab world, formerly that of a convicted dictator, has undergone a resurgence of admiration and awe.

On the streets, in newspapers and over the Internet, Mr. Hussein has emerged as a Sunni Arab hero who stood calm and composed as his Shiite executioners tormented and abused him.

“No one will ever forget the way in which Saddam was executed,” President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt remarked in an interview with the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot published Friday and distributed by the official Egyptian news agency. “They turned him into a martyr.”

In Libya, which canceled celebrations of the feast of Id al-Adha after the execution, a government statement said a statue depicting Mr. Hussein in the gallows would be erected, along with a monument to Omar al-Mukhtar, who resisted the Italian invasion of Libya and was hanged by the Italians in 1931.

In Morocco and the Palestinian territories, demonstrators held aloft photographs of Mr. Hussein and condemned the United States.

Here in Beirut, hundreds of members of the Lebanese Baath Party and Palestinian activists marched Friday in a predominantly Sunni neighborhood behind a symbolic coffin representing that of Mr. Hussein and later offered a funeral prayer. Photographs of Mr. Hussein standing up in court, against a backdrop of the Dome of the Rock shrine in Jerusalem, were pasted on city walls near Palestinian refugee camps, praising “Saddam the martyr.”

“God damn America and its spies,” a banner across one major Beirut thoroughfare read. “Our condolences to the nation for the assassination of Saddam, and victory to the Iraqi resistance.”

By standing up to the United States and its client government in Baghdad and dying with seeming dignity, Mr. Hussein appears to have been virtually cleansed of his past.

“Suddenly we forgot that he was a dictator and that he killed thousands of people,” said Roula Haddad, 33, a Lebanese Christian. “All our hatred for him suddenly turned into sympathy, sympathy with someone who was treated unjustly by an occupation force and its collaborators.”

Just a month ago Mr. Hussein was widely dismissed as a criminal who deserved the death penalty, even if his trial was seen as flawed. Much of the Middle East reacted with a collective shrug when he was found guilty of crimes against humanity in November.

But shortly after his execution last Saturday, a video emerged that showed Shiite guards taunting Mr. Hussein, who responded calmly but firmly to them. From then on, many across the region began looking at him as a martyr.

“The Arab world has been devoid of pride for a long time,” said Ahmad Mazin al-Shugairi, who hosts a television show at the Middle East Broadcasting Center that promotes a moderate version of Islam in Saudi Arabia. “The way Saddam acted in court and just before he was executed, with dignity and no fear, struck a chord with Arabs who are desperate for their own leaders to have pride too.”

Ayman Safadi, editor in chief of the independent Jordanian daily Al Ghad, said, “The last image for many was of Saddam taken out of a hole. That has all changed now.”

At the heart of the sudden reversal of opinion was the symbolism of the hasty execution, now framed as an act of sectarian vengeance shrouded in political theater and overseen by the American occupation.

In much of the predominantly Sunni Arab world, the timing of the execution in the early hours of Id al-Adha, which is among the holiest days of the Muslim year, when violence is forbidden and when even Mr. Hussein himself sometimes released prisoners, was seen as a direct insult to the Sunni world.

The contrast between the official video aired without sound on Iraqi television of Mr. Hussein being taken to the gallows and fitted with a noose around his neck and the unauthorized grainy, chaotic recording of the same scene with sound, depicting Shiite militiamen taunting Mr. Hussein with his hands tied, damning him to hell and praising the militant Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, touched a sectarian nerve.

“He stood as strong as a mountain while he was being hanged,” said Ahmed el-Ghamrawi, a former Egyptian ambassador to Iraq. “He died a strong president and lived as a strong president. This is the image people are left with.”

Daoud Kuttab, a Palestinian media critic and director of the online radio station Ammannet.net, said: “If Saddam had media planners, he could not have planned it better than this. Nobody could ever have imagined that Saddam would have gone down with such dignity.”

Writers and commentators have stopped short of eulogizing the dictator but have looked right past his bloody history as they compare Iraq’s present circumstances with Iraq under Mr. Hussein.

In Jordan, long a bastion of support for Mr. Hussein, many are lionizing him, decrying the timing of the execution and the taunts as part of a Sunni-Shiite conflict.

“Was it a coincidence that Israel, Iran and the United States all welcomed Saddam’s execution?” wrote Hamadeh Faraneh, a columnist for the daily Al Rai. “Was it also a coincidence when Saddam said bravely in front of his tormentors, ‘Long live the nation,’ and that Palestine is Arab, then uttered the declaration of faith? His last words expressed his depth and what he died for.”

Another Jordanian journalist, Muhammad Abu Rumman, wrote in Al Ghad on Thursday: “For the vast majority Saddam is a martyr, even if he made mistakes in his first years of rule. He cleansed himself later by confronting the Americans and by rejecting to negotiate with them.”

Even the pro-Saudi news media, normally critical of Mr. Hussein, chimed in with a more sentimental tone.

In the London-based pan-Arab daily Al Hayat, Bilal Khubbaiz, commenting on Iranian and Israeli praise of the execution, wrote, “Saddam, as Iraq’s ruler, was an iron curtain that prevented the Iranian influence from reaching into the Arab world,” as well as “a formidable party in the Arab-Israeli conflict.”

Zuhayr Qusaybati, also writing in Al Hayat, said the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, “gave Saddam what he most wanted: he turned him into a martyr in the eyes of many Iraqis, who can now demand revenge.”

“The height of idiocy,” Mr. Qusaybati said, “is for the man who rules Baghdad under American protection not to realize the purpose of rushing the execution, and that the guillotine carries the signature of a Shiite figure as the flames of sectarian division do not spare Shiites or Sunnis in a country grieving for its butchered citizens.”

In Saudi Arabia, poems eulogizing Mr. Hussein have been passed around on cellphones and in e-mail messages.

“Prepare the gun that will avenge Saddam,” a poem published in a Saudi newspaper warned. “The criminal who signed the execution order without valid reason cheated us on our celebration day. How beautiful it will be when the bullet goes through the heart of him who betrayed Arabism.”

Mr. Safadi, the Jordanian editor, said: “In the public’s perception Saddam was terrible, but those people were worse. That final act has really jeopardized the future of Iraq immensely. And we all know this is a blow to the moderate camp in the Arab world.”

[Crazed Rabbit]

He deserved it, though the way it was executed was shoddy and left much to be desired.

I do not accept the idea of capital punishment as immoral or wrong, either.


And while we are putting people to death for warcrimes - lets not forget the ones who Fire Bombed Dresden, and wiped out millions of innocent women and children in the blink of an eye in Hiroshima and Nagasaki - why arnt they on trial? Until that day - how dare we pass judgement on others.

Far, far less than a million died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, and even then actually saved lives.

CR

[Yun Dog]

He deserved it, though the way it was executed was shoddy and left much to be desired.

I do not accept the idea of capital punishment as immoral or wrong, either.



Far, far less than a million died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, and even then actually saved lives.

CR


Only hundreds of thousands.... Oh well that makes it ok then [sarcasm] :no:

I hear the holocaust numbers are exagerated too [more sarcasm]

[Pannonian]

He deserved it, though the way it was executed was shoddy and left much to be desired.

I do not accept the idea of capital punishment as immoral or wrong, either.

Have you thought about whether it might be wise to do, not what is right, but what is useful? With Saddam out of the game, what purpose did his execution serve? What dangers did it bring? If he were left alive, how could he still be used? After all, leaving him alive now doesn't mean he's definitively going to be left alive, but killing him now means no turning back the clock.

My suggestion of keeping him alive to threaten the Sadrists with would have been a better idea. It's not as if the Iraqis can do anything to prevent whatever decision you make - the VP proved that when he moaned about Blair rescinding a promise to pull out.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

My suggestion of keeping him alive to threaten the Sadrists


By that time, Saddam couldn't threaten or intimidate/scare anything.

[Pannonian]

By that time, Saddam couldn't threaten or intimidate/scare anything.
No harm in trying. Why give up all your options just because you don't think they'll work? The 1st president of Kenya was once condemned by the British to several years of hard labour. Once we found the alternatives were even worse, we put him back in charge of the natives, with our backing. Despite our brutal suppression of the native Mau Mau rebellion, we've maintained fairly cordial relations with Kenya, because we were flexible enough and wise enough to backtrack.

PS. Isn't the sig supposed to be 10K or less in size?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Only hundreds of thousands.... Oh well that makes it ok then [sarcasm] :no:

I hear the holocaust numbers are exagerated too [more sarcasm]

I never said that. I believe no war, no matter how just, to be pleasant.


Have you thought about whether it might be wise to do, not what is right, but what is useful? With Saddam out of the game, what purpose did his execution serve?

Point taken. However, it could be argued that his execution served certain purposes - to put the old regime to rest for good, to put the country on a new track unimpeded by the past, etc.

Lemur, you're right about this being a mess. Gah, what a mess.
Saddam, for all his evilness, had a stiff upper lip. Perhaps it would have been more useful for him to spend his days in jail - though what violent attempts to free him would it provoke?

Crazed Rabbit

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Saddam as Sunni martyr was a forgone conclusion.

It was the best means to capitalize upon his death for political value. The placards were probably printed up weeks ago.

In fact, had I been running the insurgency, I'd have had my Sunnis yelling "Moqtada" during the hanging knowing that somehow the scene would be broadcast.


Now, for the real question. Aside from a bit of verbal hoopla over the course of the next few weeks, will Saddam's death have made any material impact on the unfolding events of the Middle East in general and of Iraq in particular?

[Navaros]

Saddam's murder is definitely going to motivate more people to become Jihadists to fight the infidels. That will clearly result in more tangible deaths of American soldiers and civilians who get in the crossfire.

[Ice]

Glad to see him go, although it took about 3 years longer than it should have.

[caravel]

Saddam's murder is definitely going to motivate more people to become Jihadists to fight the infidels. That will clearly result in more tangible deaths of American soldiers and civilians who get in the crossfire.
You're stating the obvious, unfortunately there are some that see this as "justice" that needed to be done. These people can't see the bigger picture they simply look at the evil villain and want to see him getting his just deserves, if as a result of this worthless retribution, the situation in Iraq worsens with an increase in militancy, civilian and military personnel deaths, well that was just regrettable collateral damage and they had a "job to do", and will plunge on ahead regardless with the same tunnel vision approach as before.

[Pannonian]

Point taken. However, it could be argued that his execution served certain purposes - to put the old regime to rest for good, to put the country on a new track unimpeded by the past, etc.

If you're going to have a clean start, then you needed to put far more resources into Iraq than you actually did, or terrorise them so that a 100,000 strong occupation army is sufficient to intimidate the rest (say, by massacring the population of Tikrit). If you don't want to put in the boots, and you want to keep your hands relatively clean, you'll need to play the balance of power game. That game requires as much certainty on your part, and as much uncertainty on the part of others, as you can create. On one level, it means keeping as many options open as possible - you know what options you want to take, but the opposition doesn't. Removing your options for no better reason than justice is stupid.

I'm not saying the execution of Saddam was unjust. It's worse than that. It was stupid.

[caravel]

The problem is that you can't put old regimes "to rest for good" using these sort of methods. Once a leader is martyred the cause usually grows in strength, and if a new leader is found of a similar calibre the cause is often renewed. If you want to crush insurgency like this, in a country such as Iraq, you have to use much the same methods as Saddam used in the past, which makes you no better than he. The alternative is to continue as at present. Even if the supporters do evaporate, as some people seem to think they will, they will often, having lost their leadership and feeling embittered against the coaltion forces, join other militant movements adding to their numbers, and adding to the problem. The other militias will now fill the power vacuum and the average man on the street will look to them for representation. In such times, people often turn to extremism ("anything is better than the Westerners"). The main issue in Iraq is not forces loyal to Saddam anyway. Shi'ite militias look to be the next biggest problem, that really hasn't even got started yet.

[Adrian II]

Aside from a bit of verbal hoopla over the course of the next few weeks, will Saddam's death have made any material impact on the unfolding events of the Middle East in general and of Iraq in particular?I think his hanging and the circumstances surrounding it (such as prime minister Maliki declaring he wants to quit a.s.a.p.) have sent a clear signal that Shia militants are now in control of the Iraqi government, and that they are planning their own day of reckoing with the Sunnis. A very bad omen for all involved.

[Navaros]

No longer just one young boy dying as a direct result of Saddam's murder.

Several boys die copying Saddam hanging
By ANNA JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer

CAIRO, Egypt - The boys' deaths — scattered in the United States, in Yemen, in Turkey and elsewhere in seemingly isolated horror — had one thing in common: They hanged themselves after watching televised images of Saddam Hussein's execution.


Officials and relatives say the children appeared to be mimicking the former dictator's Dec. 30 hanging, shown both on a sanitized Iraqi government tape and explicit clandestine videos that popped up on Web sites and some TV channels.

The leaked videos, apparently taken by cell phone cameras, set off international outrage over the raucous scene at Saddam's execution, but some experts are more concerned about the images of the deposed Iraqi leader dropping through the gallows floor and his body swinging at the end of a rope.

The experts say such graphic images can severely affect youngsters who do not yet understand the consequences of death and violence — especially because Saddam's death received intense international attention.

"They see how it's done, but they don't think it's horrific, and they're more likely to imitate it," said Hisham Ramy, an associate professor of psychiatry at Ain Shams University in Cairo.

A day after Saddam's execution, a 10-year-old boy in Texas hanged himself from a bunk bed after watching a news report on the execution. Police in the Houston suburb of Webster said the boy, Sergio Pelico, tied a slipknot around his neck while on the bed but had not mean to kill himself.

"I don't think he thought it was real," Julio Gustavo, Sergio's uncle, said afterward. "They showed them putting the noose around his neck and everything. Why show that on TV?"

Something similar occurred in Turkey, where 12-year-old Alisen Akti hanged himself Wednesday from a bunk bed after watching TV footage. His father, Esat Akti, told a newspaper in the southeastern province of Mus that his son had been affected by the televised images.

"After watching Saddam's execution he was constantly asking 'How was Saddam killed?' and 'Did he suffer?'" Akti was quoted as saying. "These television images are responsible for my son's death."

Nine-year-old Mubassahr Ali, from the eastern Pakistan town of Rahim Yar Khan, died hours after Saddam when he also mimicked the ousted leader's execution, local police official Sultan Ahmed Chaudhry said.

"The ill-fated boy used a long piece of cloth, tied it with a ceiling fan and wrapped its other end around his neck. Then he stood on a chair and fell down," Chaudhry said.

In Yemen, at least two young boys died and another was injured in apparent imitations of Saddam's hanging.

One of the cases involved a 13-year-old junior high school student who hanged himself after watching Saddam's execution on television, a Yemeni security official said.

When the boy's family returned to their home outside the capital, San'a, on Wednesday, they found him hanging from a tree wearing a traditional Arab headdress, said the boy's cousin, Yahya al-Hammadi.

In Saudi Arabia, a 12-year-old boy was found by his brother hanging from an iron door with a rope around his neck, the newspaper Okaz reported. The boy, Sultan Abdullah al-Shemmeri, lived with his family in the province of Hafr al-Baten, near the Iraqi border.

"The child was just 12 years old and didn't really know whether the execution of Saddam was something good or bad," a Saudi Interior Ministry official said Saturday. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the press.

Local media in Algeria and India also have reported other mimicking deaths, but these could not immediately be confirmed.

Ramy, the professor in Egypt, said children are prone to imitating violence they encounter on television, the Internet and movies, but usually they act out against another person. Mimicking a hanging or suicide is unusual, but perhaps in this case it is unsurprising, he said.

Because "some people have said Saddam is a hero and martyr and have glorified his death, this has affected children," Ramy said.

But Jasem Hajia, a child psychologist in Kuwait City, cautioned against placing all the blame on video images. "This is extreme, and I think there were physiological disorders as well with the children," Hajia said.

___

Associated Press writers Ahmed al-Haj in Yemen and Khalid Tanveer in Pakistan contributed to this report.

[PanzerJaeger]

No longer just one young boy dying as a direct result of Saddam's murder.

Several boys die copying Saddam hanging


Future idiots taken care of - thanks to Saddam. :laugh4:

[Yun Dog]

Future idiots taken care of - thanks to Saddam. :laugh4:

EDIT: No personal attacks please. BG

*looks up how to add user to ignore list*

[Sjakihata]

*looks up how to add user to ignore list*

Easy. Go to user CP, ignore/buddylist and add the name in question and update the list. Works like a charm.

[PanzerJaeger]

Come on now, these darwin award nominees were 12 and 13 years old.

Either I was of superior than average intelligence at that age(edit: which is hard to believe), or these boys were idiots; as I certainly could comprehend the results of hanging myself.

I mean, what kind of genius sees a man die by hanging on TV, and decide to try it out himself?

Some of the members of this board are 12 and 13... such idiocy is insulting to their intelligence I would presume. :yes:

[Devastatin Dave]

Some of the members of this board are 12 and 13... such idiocy is insulting to their intelligence I would presume. :yes:
You presume too much, and not just the younger members!!!:laugh4:

What, nothing for me to edit, Dave? You're slippin' man. Wait... 'not just the younger members'... hmmmm. :)