Saddam Hussein to be executed soon

Post Reply New Topic

You're right, no fact - Turns out my number was wrong - turns out, in what I was referring to, his 1988 "genocide:"
killing 5,000 civilians, and maiming, disfiguring, or seriously debilitating 10,000 more < -- wiki

Now, you say "perhaps 1 million people" then you state how it could be more. Whoa, I had a point, here, but its changed to something else. You just referenced a 'war' statistic. There is a fine line between 'war' and 'genocide' and these are 2 different issues. You want to bring 'war' into this then we have a very interesting conversation to move to (America is at war, illegally, with Iraq).

My point with ALLLLLLL of this is that it sets a precedent I don't think people are ready to deal with that, yet. These 'criminals' cannot be convicted when we 'want to' like this Saddam scenario. Again, if this were an issue it should have been dealt with when the crimes took place, NOT out of convenience some years later. You know what that tells me? We REALLY don't give a s**t. We don't care if he kills people, its clear, people die in Darfur EVERYDAY. My point with this isn't to free Saddam but to point out the PRECEDENT and HYPOCRISY this sets up. People cannot deal with that.



I imagined you to be older. My point with questioning this ties into the above points of 'precedent' and 'hypocrisy' that you may or may not fall into it. But, just so you know, if you care about trying Saddam, then there's a BIG list of countries that are committing major war crimes as I type. This issue is not 'black and white' and as much as the 'west' or 'America' wants to think, it does not have all the answers. As well, the 'World' didn't support this war for a reason. The only country the TRUELY cared about capturing Saddam was America. Now, that raises a flag, in my opinion, when the rest of the world doesn't care about this trial and that only America and Iraq did. Yay, he's dead (but what country supported the attack in the first place?). You have to view everything, just not Saddam. It seems the media at focusing on Saddam. A VERY good job.



Worrying? You are now talking in fear (guess who is the best at fueling a countries own fear? (Yup, you guessed it, their own governments)). A fearful society coincidentally is a productive society (Reference: Cold War). As well, WW2 - what great achievements came from that? People ARE aware of these things.



The world is of disillusion (Reference: Buddhism).

Now, you go on about supporting of 'fixing the other problems of the world' which is great and answers anything assumptions I have placed about (in regards to hypocrisy, so don't bother responding to that, I'm going to leave it for others to read).

Do I support the troops? Saying 'yes' means diddly squat! You can support them all you want with your words but your words are nothing more then words. People talk at my work 90% of their day and they do no work. The result is more work to do later on. Now, if you want to sign up, jump on a plane, and be a hero over there, this is a different story. By all means, you'll be better then me or the next person that simply says 'yes' to that question, but it really doesn't matter what I think. It only matters of whats actually 'done.' So yes, send 'other people' to go do it. Hell, send people everywhere. Truth is, I'm not going. I can offer financial support, sure, but its the actual act that matters, not what I 'think.' Do you think all the supporters of whats going on right now are helping? Not likely. Its easy to say 'yes' when its not you actually 'doing it.'



Not quite. See, doing that - leveling a country - that doesn't look very good, does it? Hitler did that and the result was every country (almost) in the world attacking him. Its not a 'smart' thing to do when you want people on your side, leveling a country, that is.



See, this is the issue. There was no proof he was dead. When Mussolini was killed, EVERYONE knew it. You don't find it odd the only person there holding a camera was the world's shakiest person UNABLE to take a CLEAR shot? You say its absurd but I think its absurd you believe with your ears and not your eyes. Seeing IS believing, in my opinion, as years of listening to people embolish stories has taught me to not trust everything I hear. The fact he was hung then buried in the worlds fastest 'execution/burial' makes me wonder. Yes, some words on paper doesn't mean a whole lot if there aren't pictures to go along with it. You believing this, this tells me your logic towards believing doesn't extend much beyond hear say. You understand the 'hear say' isnt reliable evidence?

There is a thread discussing Palestinians fabricating stories. Look up 'Pallywood.'

He may have been very well hung but there is only 1 single piece of convenient evidence. No cameras aloud? Why was he aloud a 'phone?' Answer these questions I ask since what *I* think is absurd. If you can make such a bold statement, then YOU MUST have the answers. Answer why a camera phone was aloud when, potentially, no cameras were aloud. Answer why the footage is so horrible (in the year 2006), tell me why the camera is not held steady. I've video taped people, I've watched people video tape others, I've never seen someone video tape like they were in an earthquake unless they were running. 'How' that man was video taping an execution while on level ground was 'illogical' and 'not normal behaviour.' Christ, I feel like I was watching a horrible movie.



Connections to terrorism?
Cuba
Iran
Libya
North Korea
Sudan
Syria

See ya in those countries then. North Korea states they HAVE WMD, yet, here we are.



Aww yes, now we will outstretch the reasonings of 'logic' to ask 'What is proof?' Proof is a visual that Saddam is dead (now, you can ask me 'do you want a DNA test? How can we ever be sure?'). A CLEAR PICTURE of him clearly dead. This man had SO MUCH controversy behind him that to simply 'hang him behind close doors' then 'bury the body' in the fastest amount of time possible is a bit, well, lets put it this way: he killed "millions," supposedly, and they just vanished the body. Just like that. A TEXT headline reads "Saddam dead." Imagine if he died in the actual WAR itself. Would you be content without a picture? Maybe a headline tucked on the back of page 8 reads "Saddam dead, everyone stop worring" then gives little to no detail.



How about the privacy issue?



Yes, and people are in government. When people climb to the top, we'd love to think they don't become corrupted but, well, money + power = temptation. There's a super reason why the Rich tend to control everything.

Just to be clear, I dont care if Saddam is alive or not. I didnt care in:
1998
1999
2000
2001

And when the towers fell, I still didn't care.

Terrorist took out the tower for a reason. You want to know what a terrorist is over there? Liberation fighter or 'freedom fighter.' But, isn't that what we are? 'Terrorist' is a strong word designed to make you feel 'ill' towards them. Its a 'label' which applies emotion to yourself when you hear it.

The point is, terrorist exist because of their belief. They have a culture and many leaders feel its going to be wiped out by the "imperialist." Imagine if some country stepped foot on your land and told you to change - even if it were for the better (then you have now). People are resistent to change and they are MORE resistent to being forced into that change.

Now, whether thats the psychological reason they are fighting America or not, please know these people ARE people. They ARENT terrorist, they are fighting for a belief that you do not share and may think is crazy. Just keep in mind that these nations look like they are 2000 years behind and that the west had a few 100 years to progress out of religious beliefs and into the society we know today. We evolved naturally but they, they came into a world that was ahead of their time and now we're telling them 'yo, this is the way it is.'

I honestly think the internet is the best weapon. One can only change their mind on their own but this is another discussion

Corvus, thx for the response. I'll try to (perhaps) get to your earlier posting earlier.

My favorite radio talk show host, Dennis Prager, likes to say he prefers clarity to agreement. I agree. We have a strong disagreement here and are unlikely to come to anything approaching consensus however this is probably one of the better opportunities to contrast the differences between our two positions and allow people to make up their own minds.

I agree that the word terrorist brings home strong emotions. However I believe that it is correct to apply that word to the insurgency in Iraq. There goal is to inspire terror in the population as a way to achieve their own ends. They are aware they cannot win a conventional conflict, and they have recently focused their attacks not on Coalition forces but on the Iraqi population itself (which does not back any of the insurgency groups).

As a comparison, I would note consider the attacks on (despite rhetoric to the contrary) the U.S. Marine Barracks in Beirut in 1982, or the attack on the U.S.S. Cole were not terrorist attacks. These were guerrilla attacks taken against military targets. Those who perpetrated the attacks are not covered under the Geneva Convention (at least the one signed by the United States), but there own actions are not in the same realm as an attack on a purely civilian target.

I agree that terrorists exist because of their beliefs. But then again I believe that abortion is wrong but I do not endorse the blowing up of city buses to try to force the court to overturn Rove v. Wade. It is misleading to suggest the insurgent groups wish to defeat the United States/Iraqi Government because they object to imperialism. One of the dominant insurgent groups in Iraq is al-Qaida, whose ultimate stated goal is to establish a united Islamic caliphate. The insurgency is also fueled by Iran and Syria, who do not want a comparably liberal country in the middle east to influence their own citizens.

If the US was taken over by a dictator like Saddam Hussein I would hope that another country would come to assistance even if it meant foreign troops on US soil.

The Muslim world was just as, if not more, advanced as the west at one point in history. In fact, there was a time when it looked when China, or the Islamic world could overtake European civilization. However both the Muslim sphere and Chinese closed themselves off, and Europe ascended. I also think it is unrealistic for the much of the world to just wait for the Islamic world to "evolve" in this nuclear age.

Oh, one other thing.

That's OK. It is hard to enough to judge that kind of thing in person, let alone on the internet.

I concur

As for them using violence. Its arguable that war has evolved to include civilizians as the enemy. After all, they DO support the military and the military acts out what they supprt. Take out the support, lose the military morale. WW2 saw civilians being targeted.

Remember, this is a violent world (unfortunately) and although I dont agree, violence tends to be the way we solve problems (in my world we have discussion which I'm sure you'll agree on ). Its the way America was formed (they even have violence in the national anthem).