Death penalty for Saddam Hussein
Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has been convicted of crimes against humanity by a Baghdad court and sentenced to death by hanging.
He was found guilty over his role in the killing of 148 people in the mainly Shia town of Dujail in 1982.
His co-defendant former judge Awad Hamed al-Bander was also sentenced to death. Former vice-president Taha Yassin Ramadan got life in jail.
Three others received 15 year prison terms, another official was acquitted.
BBC
Death For Saddam
Death For Saddam
I was reading the reaction to the verdicts at the Nuremberg Trial in September 1946, thinking that it will be interesting to compare with what we see from Iraq in the next few days. In 1946 there were no German protests, no sense that the verdicts were politically motivated or unwarranted. Will the Iraqis see this trial in a similar light?
There was also a distinct lack of gloating on the part of the victors in 1946:Many people that afternoon in fact felt a common humanity with the men who were condemned. Those who had fought in the armed services especially. They knew how disgusting all war is, how easily they might have been involved in acts for which the defendants must now suffer. The dignity and courage of the prisoners as they stood to hear their verdicts had moved everyone - would they themselves have been capable of such control? How would the British Cabinet have stood up to such a trial, such a moment, when their future was being dictated? When the court adjourned on 31st August everyone had gone out to celebrate. Tonight there was little celebration. Most people felt depressed and went home quietly to pack. It is a terrible thing to see a man condemned to death even when you are certain that he has been responsible for the death of millions.
Ann and John Tusa, "The Nuremberg Trial"
There was also a distinct lack of gloating on the part of the victors in 1946:Many people that afternoon in fact felt a common humanity with the men who were condemned. Those who had fought in the armed services especially. They knew how disgusting all war is, how easily they might have been involved in acts for which the defendants must now suffer. The dignity and courage of the prisoners as they stood to hear their verdicts had moved everyone - would they themselves have been capable of such control? How would the British Cabinet have stood up to such a trial, such a moment, when their future was being dictated? When the court adjourned on 31st August everyone had gone out to celebrate. Tonight there was little celebration. Most people felt depressed and went home quietly to pack. It is a terrible thing to see a man condemned to death even when you are certain that he has been responsible for the death of millions.
Ann and John Tusa, "The Nuremberg Trial"
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Death For Saddam
It is a terrible thing to see a man condemned to death even when you are certain that he has been responsible for the death of millions.
I agree wholeheartedly.
I agree wholeheartedly.
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Death For Saddam
How in the heck do you figure that??
Hussein is a monster ala Hitler. He does not deserve to be called a human being. How can you feel poorly about the imminent death of a cretin who tortured, maimed and murdered innocent human beings?! Please explain that.
Hussein is a monster ala Hitler. He does not deserve to be called a human being. How can you feel poorly about the imminent death of a cretin who tortured, maimed and murdered innocent human beings?! Please explain that.
Death For Saddam
RedGlitter;450009 wrote: How in the heck do you figure that??
Hussein is a monster ala Hitler. He does not deserve to be called a human being. How can you feel poorly about the imminent death of a cretin who tortured, maimed and murdered innocent human beings?! Please explain that.
If we begin to see other humans as less than human who will draw the line? He is, in fact, a human being. To say otherwise opens the doors to a world of trouble.
Hussein is a monster ala Hitler. He does not deserve to be called a human being. How can you feel poorly about the imminent death of a cretin who tortured, maimed and murdered innocent human beings?! Please explain that.
If we begin to see other humans as less than human who will draw the line? He is, in fact, a human being. To say otherwise opens the doors to a world of trouble.
Death For Saddam
How a murderer should be treated is not a universally agreed upon issue.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Death For Saddam
He's damned fortunate that he's getting far better than he gave.
I wonder if Al Queda are going to broadcast this execution on the internet.
I wonder if Al Queda are going to broadcast this execution on the internet.
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
Death For Saddam
I agree with the sentence.
Death For Saddam
RedGlitter;450009 wrote: How in the heck do you figure that??
Hussein is a monster ala Hitler. He does not deserve to be called a human being. How can you feel poorly about the imminent death of a cretin who tortured, maimed and murdered innocent human beings?! Please explain that.Not even Hitler's contemporaries used language like yours - trying to understand people and acknowledge their positive as well as depreciate their negative qualities is surely more valuable than pretending there's a category of "sub-human" talking animal which can become a head of state and yet be so lacking in brainpower as to qualify as a "cretin".
Churchill didn't, for example (since you raise this comparison between the Third Reich and Baathist Iraq) - he wrote (initially in November 1935 and repeated in 1937):One may dislike Hitler's system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.
What you have in Iraq is a judicial lynching of an inconvenient Head of State who knows entirely too much of US-Iraqi relations since the 1970s, who has been held incommunicado by US (not Iraqi) jailers throughout the show-trial, who is definitely not going to get to speak to any journalists or TV cameras before he's placed permanently out of harm's way. Why else do you think the trial wasn't held at the War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague?
Hussein is a monster ala Hitler. He does not deserve to be called a human being. How can you feel poorly about the imminent death of a cretin who tortured, maimed and murdered innocent human beings?! Please explain that.Not even Hitler's contemporaries used language like yours - trying to understand people and acknowledge their positive as well as depreciate their negative qualities is surely more valuable than pretending there's a category of "sub-human" talking animal which can become a head of state and yet be so lacking in brainpower as to qualify as a "cretin".
Churchill didn't, for example (since you raise this comparison between the Third Reich and Baathist Iraq) - he wrote (initially in November 1935 and repeated in 1937):One may dislike Hitler's system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.
What you have in Iraq is a judicial lynching of an inconvenient Head of State who knows entirely too much of US-Iraqi relations since the 1970s, who has been held incommunicado by US (not Iraqi) jailers throughout the show-trial, who is definitely not going to get to speak to any journalists or TV cameras before he's placed permanently out of harm's way. Why else do you think the trial wasn't held at the War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Death For Saddam
There is the little matter of a missing 8 000 pages from the 11, 800 (original) pages of the weapons declaration report issued by Iraq to the UN in 2002.
The missing pages happen to include all the information regarding complicity of the US, China and Russia in the crimes Saddam is being hung for. Full reports are in circulation but the whole story is #3 on the Project Censored report as the whole matter was...censored.
It seems that evidence in this case is somewhat...abbreviated.
The missing pages happen to include all the information regarding complicity of the US, China and Russia in the crimes Saddam is being hung for. Full reports are in circulation but the whole story is #3 on the Project Censored report as the whole matter was...censored.
It seems that evidence in this case is somewhat...abbreviated.
-
cherandbuster
- Posts: 8594
- Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 11:33 am
Death For Saddam
If this is going to turn into a death penalty thread, we've done it a few times already.
You'll have people, like Acc, Red and me who say "Kill that bastard"
And you'll have people like Spot and Koan who say "You can't treat a human being that way without crossing a line"
So there we have it :-6
You'll have people, like Acc, Red and me who say "Kill that bastard"
And you'll have people like Spot and Koan who say "You can't treat a human being that way without crossing a line"
So there we have it :-6
Live Life with
PASSION!:guitarist
PASSION!:guitarist
Death For Saddam
cherandbuster;450045 wrote: If this is going to turn into a death penalty thread, we've done it a few times already.I don't think the thread's likely to go near "is the death penalty an acceptable punishment", cher. What I can see in this thread so far is criticism of US reticence on its government's collusion with the accused, on its retention of embarrassing defence materials, on the terms under which the accused has been held incommunicado for so long and the likelihood of that seclusion continuing, on the denial of an International Court setting for the trial in favour of one policed entirely by the US administration... nothing, even once, about the ethics of the death penalty. It hadn't crossed my mind.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
cherandbuster
- Posts: 8594
- Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 11:33 am
Death For Saddam
spot;450061 wrote: I don't think the thread's likely to go near "is the death penalty an acceptable punishment", cher. What I can see in this thread so far is criticism of US reticence on its government's collusion with the accused, on its retention of embarrassing defence materials, on the terms under which the accused has been held incommunicado for so long and the likelihood of that seclusion continuing, on the denial of an International Court setting for the trial in favour of one policed entirely by the US administration... nothing, even once, about the ethics of the death penalty. It hadn't crossed my mind.
well O. K. then :p
well O. K. then :p
Live Life with
PASSION!:guitarist
PASSION!:guitarist
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Death For Saddam
I can't go for that, Spot. At all. I can't believe anyone would commend this evil monster for his work accomplishments when he delivered nothing but atrocity upon humanity. That is ludicrous. That's also where we get into trouble- not in deciding when someone is subhuman and should or shouldn't die but rather when we excuse his actions because he is a carbon based life form just as his victims were. That's appalling.
I'm not arguing whether or not he should die. I'm questioning the sanity and morality of allowing him to exist.
I'm not arguing whether or not he should die. I'm questioning the sanity and morality of allowing him to exist.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Death For Saddam
koan;450041 wrote: There is the little matter of a missing 8 000 pages from the 11, 800 (original) pages of the weapons declaration report issued by Iraq to the UN in 2002.
The missing pages happen to include all the information regarding complicity of the US, China and Russia in the crimes Saddam is being hung for. Full reports are in circulation but the whole story is #3 on the Project Censored report as the whole matter was...censored.
It seems that evidence in this case is somewhat...abbreviated.
I'm sure you're right. I'm sure that if all the evidence were public, we'd see what a misunderstood Samaritan he is. :yh_eyebro
The missing pages happen to include all the information regarding complicity of the US, China and Russia in the crimes Saddam is being hung for. Full reports are in circulation but the whole story is #3 on the Project Censored report as the whole matter was...censored.
It seems that evidence in this case is somewhat...abbreviated.
I'm sure you're right. I'm sure that if all the evidence were public, we'd see what a misunderstood Samaritan he is. :yh_eyebro
Death For Saddam
Accountable;450067 wrote: I'm sure you're right. I'm sure that if all the evidence were public, we'd see what a misunderstood Samaritan he is. :yh_eyebro
I've not once questioned Saddam's guilt. That would be foolish. It is a matter of trying not to be selective with justice and with maintaining reason in our vision of other humans as being of the same species.
I've not once questioned Saddam's guilt. That would be foolish. It is a matter of trying not to be selective with justice and with maintaining reason in our vision of other humans as being of the same species.
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Death For Saddam
There is something seriously wrong and dangerous when we show compassion toward evil. I don't understand where this attitude comes from.
Death For Saddam
And how shall we go about killing everyone who is evil then? To keep things fair and just. Or is some level of evil permissible?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Death For Saddam
koan;450071 wrote: I've not once questioned Saddam's guilt. That would be foolish. It is a matter of trying not to be selective with justice and with maintaining reason in our vision of other humans as being of the same species.
Eh? :-2 So you're saying not enough people are being executed here? Name names, then.
Eh? :-2 So you're saying not enough people are being executed here? Name names, then.
Death For Saddam
RedGlitter;450075 wrote: There is something seriously wrong and dangerous when we show compassion toward evil. I don't understand where this attitude comes from.The problem lies rather in portraying complex real-life circumstances with simplistic labels like "evil". The word is a godsend to propagandists, it shuts all ears to anything resembling debate. Rather than relying on your ability to sniff out and recognise evil, like a 21st century Cotton Mather, why not abandon black-and-white belief and consider what's being said?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Death For Saddam
koan;450081 wrote: And how shall we go about killing everyone who is evil then? To keep things fair and just. Or is some level of evil permissible?
What's difficult to understand? I knwo there will be those who will pretend not to know the difference between robbing a bank and whacking off someone's head with a machete, but I think for purposes of common sense, evil is as evil does.
:-2
What's difficult to understand? I knwo there will be those who will pretend not to know the difference between robbing a bank and whacking off someone's head with a machete, but I think for purposes of common sense, evil is as evil does.
:-2
Death For Saddam
Accountable;450083 wrote: Eh? :-2 So you're saying not enough people are being executed here? Name names, then.
you make the assumption that guilt must result in execution. it is a wrong assumption, please don't assign it to me.
you make the assumption that guilt must result in execution. it is a wrong assumption, please don't assign it to me.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Death For Saddam
koan;450091 wrote: you make the assumption that guilt must result in execution. it is a wrong assumption, please don't assign it to me.
Nice evasion. Now to the point, please.
Nice evasion. Now to the point, please.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Death For Saddam
Novelty;450092 wrote: How can the killing of another human being be the way forward for humanity?
although he is an evil killer himself with no right to kill
who then has the right to kill him? all those who agree with killing humans for what ever reason have blood on their hands also...
'kay.
although he is an evil killer himself with no right to kill
who then has the right to kill him? all those who agree with killing humans for what ever reason have blood on their hands also...
'kay.
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Death For Saddam
spot;450088 wrote: The problem lies rather in portraying complex real-life circumstances with simplistic labels like "evil". The word is a godsend to propagandists, it shuts all ears to anything resembling debate. Rather than relying on your ability to sniff out and recognise evil, like a 21st century Cotton Mather, why not abandon black-and-white belief and consider what's being said?
Because sometimes black and white is basic common sense. There is no need to dummy things up by pretending otherwise. I see what is being said here but I don't agree with it and I question the intelligence of it. I believe that is allowed here, no?
Sure, sometimes the word evil is bandied about but last time I checked, I had no problem recognizing it. If it walks like a duck, that doesn't always make it some other animal.
Because sometimes black and white is basic common sense. There is no need to dummy things up by pretending otherwise. I see what is being said here but I don't agree with it and I question the intelligence of it. I believe that is allowed here, no?
Sure, sometimes the word evil is bandied about but last time I checked, I had no problem recognizing it. If it walks like a duck, that doesn't always make it some other animal.
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Death For Saddam
Novelty;450092 wrote: How can the killing of another human being be the way forward for humanity?
although he is an evil killer himself with no right to kill
who then has the right to kill him? all those who agree with killing humans for what ever reason have blood on their hands also...
I see your point but I don't agree. Whichyou probably know already if you've seen me in the death penalty threads. I will try to answer anyway. There are those who say "two wrongs don't make a right." Then there are those like me, who say "die by the sword." I believe one killing is murder while the resulting killing would be justice.
although he is an evil killer himself with no right to kill
who then has the right to kill him? all those who agree with killing humans for what ever reason have blood on their hands also...
I see your point but I don't agree. Whichyou probably know already if you've seen me in the death penalty threads. I will try to answer anyway. There are those who say "two wrongs don't make a right." Then there are those like me, who say "die by the sword." I believe one killing is murder while the resulting killing would be justice.
Death For Saddam
RedGlitter;450089 wrote: What's difficult to understand? I knwo there will be those who will pretend not to know the difference between robbing a bank and whacking off someone's head with a machete, but I think for purposes of common sense, evil is as evil does.
:-2
What is the difference between whacking off someone's head with a machete, hanging them, injecting them with a lethal substance or frying them in an electric chair?
Actually, beheading has been considered to be one of the most humane methods of execution, as long as it is done properly.
:-2
What is the difference between whacking off someone's head with a machete, hanging them, injecting them with a lethal substance or frying them in an electric chair?
Actually, beheading has been considered to be one of the most humane methods of execution, as long as it is done properly.
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Death For Saddam
Novelty;450103 wrote: Are you some sort of abhorrent flamingo:-2
let people have their views stop being a prat...
Kay
That wasn't very nice...
Or accurate....
let people have their views stop being a prat...
Kay
That wasn't very nice...
Or accurate....Death For Saddam
RedGlitter;450096 wrote: Sure, sometimes the word evil is bandied about but last time I checked, I had no problem recognizing it. If it walks like a duck, that doesn't always make it some other animal.And yet you use terms like subhuman (a singularly Aryan-supremacist concept, I was always taught) and cretin to de-humanise your victim of the day. No, I don't like the entire concept of "evil", it's far too easy to apply. Like "witch" when you have a ducking-pond to hand and a convenient pile of faggots in the barn.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Death For Saddam
koan;450106 wrote: What is the difference between whacking off someone's head with a machete, hanging them, injecting them with a lethal substance or frying them in an electric chair?
Actually, beheading has been considered to be one of the most humane methods of execution, as long as it is done properly.
Nothing if the person being killed is innocent- it's all bad!
But as a way of justified revenge and society's (although I hate to use that word, maybe I should substitute "humanity's) stance of intolerance of wrongful killing.
Actually, beheading has been considered to be one of the most humane methods of execution, as long as it is done properly.
Nothing if the person being killed is innocent- it's all bad!
But as a way of justified revenge and society's (although I hate to use that word, maybe I should substitute "humanity's) stance of intolerance of wrongful killing.
Death For Saddam
Accountable;450093 wrote: Nice evasion. Now to the point, please.
Henry Kissinger jumps to mind as someone who should be prosecuted.
Note the use of the word prosecuted in place of executed. There is a big difference in that substitution that you have muddied.
Henry Kissinger jumps to mind as someone who should be prosecuted.
Note the use of the word prosecuted in place of executed. There is a big difference in that substitution that you have muddied.
Death For Saddam
RedGlitter;450111 wrote: Nothing if the person being killed is innocent- it's all bad!
But as a way of justified revenge and society's (although I hate to use that word, maybe I should substitute "humanity's) stance of intolerance of wrongful killing.
I appreciate that you named the revenge aspect to your opinion. There is honesty in that and it was noted.
But as a way of justified revenge and society's (although I hate to use that word, maybe I should substitute "humanity's) stance of intolerance of wrongful killing.
I appreciate that you named the revenge aspect to your opinion. There is honesty in that and it was noted.
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Death For Saddam
spot;450108 wrote: And yet you use terms like subhuman (a singularly Aryan-supremacist concept, I was always taught) and cretin to de-humanise your victim of the day. No, I don't like the entire concept of "evil", it's far too easy to apply. Like "witch" when you have a ducking-pond to hand and a convenient pile of faggots in the barn.
Spot, please help me to understand how or why you feel that my use of terminology is somehow as dehumanizing and disrespectful of human life as oh say, sticking a person in an oven? Or vivisecting them? Or setting them on fire for burning their husband's dinner? Or a myriad of other "crimes?"
I think "sticks and stones" applies here. What would YOU call Hussein? If not an evil cretin, what would you call him? A nice guy who had a behavioral problem?! Misunderstood? I won't pretend he's in the same league as I am.
Spot, please help me to understand how or why you feel that my use of terminology is somehow as dehumanizing and disrespectful of human life as oh say, sticking a person in an oven? Or vivisecting them? Or setting them on fire for burning their husband's dinner? Or a myriad of other "crimes?"
I think "sticks and stones" applies here. What would YOU call Hussein? If not an evil cretin, what would you call him? A nice guy who had a behavioral problem?! Misunderstood? I won't pretend he's in the same league as I am.
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Death For Saddam
Novelty;450119 wrote: it shouldn't be taken serious, i dont even know what an abhorrent flamingo is,
i was just getting him back for his "Key" quote, in other words i was hitting him with my handbag....
Sorry then, Novelty! I guess I thought you were picking on my friend here. I am butting out now.
Koan, absolutely. I am not one who feels all revenge is wrong. I prefer the term "avenge" for that reason. Let me say that I am not implying that killing someone is "right." I am saying that I feel that taking a life for a life taken is "justified."
i was just getting him back for his "Key" quote, in other words i was hitting him with my handbag....
Sorry then, Novelty! I guess I thought you were picking on my friend here. I am butting out now.
Koan, absolutely. I am not one who feels all revenge is wrong. I prefer the term "avenge" for that reason. Let me say that I am not implying that killing someone is "right." I am saying that I feel that taking a life for a life taken is "justified."
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Death For Saddam
Novelty;450103 wrote: Are you some sort of abhorrent flamingo:-2
let people have their views stop being a prat...
Kay
Keep to the subject, six.
let people have their views stop being a prat...
Kay
Keep to the subject, six.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Death For Saddam
koan;450112 wrote: Henry Kissinger jumps to mind as someone who should be prosecuted.
Note the use of the word prosecuted in place of executed. There is a big difference in that substitution that you have muddied.Point taken. Kissinger isn't in this particular fiasco, and likely wouldn't be mentioned in this censored evidence you mentioned.
To un-muddy my earlier post: Do you think the evidence you mentioned would reveal others deserving of sentencing equal to that of Sadam, who are getting off scott free? If so, then name names.
Note the use of the word prosecuted in place of executed. There is a big difference in that substitution that you have muddied.Point taken. Kissinger isn't in this particular fiasco, and likely wouldn't be mentioned in this censored evidence you mentioned.
To un-muddy my earlier post: Do you think the evidence you mentioned would reveal others deserving of sentencing equal to that of Sadam, who are getting off scott free? If so, then name names.
Death For Saddam
Accountable;450130 wrote: Point taken. Kissinger isn't in this particular fiasco, and likely wouldn't be mentioned in this censored evidence you mentioned.
To un-muddy my earlier post: Do you think the evidence you mentioned would reveal others deserving of sentencing equal to that of Sadam, who are getting off scott free? If so, then name names.
it just takes clicking on a link sometimes.
from Project Censored:
According to Niman, "The missing pages implicated twenty-four U.S.-based corporations and the successive Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr. administration in connection with the illegal supplying of Saddam Hussein government with myriad weapons of mass destruction and the training to use them." Groups documented in the original report that were supporting Iraq's weapons programs prior to Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait included:
- Eastman Kodak, Dupont, Honeywell, Rockwell, Sperry, Hewlett-Packard, and Bechtel,
- U.S. government agencies such as the Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture and Department of Defense,
- Nuclear weapons labs such as Lawrence-Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia.
Beginning in 1983, the U.S. was involved in eighty shipments of biological and chemical components, including strains of botulism toxin, anthrax, gangrene bacteria, West Nile fever virus, and Dengue fever virus. These shipments continued even after Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran in 1984. Later, in 1988 Iraq used the chemical weapons against the Kurds.
But perhaps most importantly, the missing pages contain information that could potentially make a case for war crimes against officials within the Reagan and the Bush Sr. administrations. This includes the current Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld — for his collaboration with Saddam Hussein leading up to the massacres of Iraqi Kurds and acting as liaison for U.S. military aid during the war between Iraq and Iran.
To un-muddy my earlier post: Do you think the evidence you mentioned would reveal others deserving of sentencing equal to that of Sadam, who are getting off scott free? If so, then name names.
it just takes clicking on a link sometimes.
from Project Censored:
According to Niman, "The missing pages implicated twenty-four U.S.-based corporations and the successive Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr. administration in connection with the illegal supplying of Saddam Hussein government with myriad weapons of mass destruction and the training to use them." Groups documented in the original report that were supporting Iraq's weapons programs prior to Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait included:
- Eastman Kodak, Dupont, Honeywell, Rockwell, Sperry, Hewlett-Packard, and Bechtel,
- U.S. government agencies such as the Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture and Department of Defense,
- Nuclear weapons labs such as Lawrence-Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia.
Beginning in 1983, the U.S. was involved in eighty shipments of biological and chemical components, including strains of botulism toxin, anthrax, gangrene bacteria, West Nile fever virus, and Dengue fever virus. These shipments continued even after Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran in 1984. Later, in 1988 Iraq used the chemical weapons against the Kurds.
But perhaps most importantly, the missing pages contain information that could potentially make a case for war crimes against officials within the Reagan and the Bush Sr. administrations. This includes the current Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld — for his collaboration with Saddam Hussein leading up to the massacres of Iraqi Kurds and acting as liaison for U.S. military aid during the war between Iraq and Iran.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Death For Saddam
Novelty;450103 wrote: Are you some sort of abhorrent flamingo:-2
let people have their views stop being a prat...
Kay
Novelty wrote: it shouldn't be taken serious, i dont even know what an abhorrent flamingo is,
i was just getting him back for his "Key" quote, in other words i was hitting him with my handbag....
All right, in that case: I am indeed letting people have their views. I've taken nothing away from them. Your "blood on their hands" remark is something I can live with, so I responded. It means nothing more to me than you mentioning that my shoes are tied.
let people have their views stop being a prat...
Kay
Novelty wrote: it shouldn't be taken serious, i dont even know what an abhorrent flamingo is,
i was just getting him back for his "Key" quote, in other words i was hitting him with my handbag....
All right, in that case: I am indeed letting people have their views. I've taken nothing away from them. Your "blood on their hands" remark is something I can live with, so I responded. It means nothing more to me than you mentioning that my shoes are tied.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Death For Saddam
koan;450134 wrote: it just takes clicking on a link sometimes.
from Project Censored:
I know nothing of Project Censored or how valid they might be. Anyone proven to have committed attrocities even close to those by Hussein deserves an identical fate.
But to fail to prosecute some because we can't prosecute all is just silly.
from Project Censored:
I know nothing of Project Censored or how valid they might be. Anyone proven to have committed attrocities even close to those by Hussein deserves an identical fate.
But to fail to prosecute some because we can't prosecute all is just silly.
Death For Saddam
RedGlitter;450120 wrote: Spot, please help me to understand how or why you feel that my use of terminology is somehow as dehumanizing and disrespectful of human life as oh say, sticking a person in an oven? Or vivisecting them? Or setting them on fire for burning their husband's dinner? Or a myriad of other "crimes?"
I think "sticks and stones" applies here. What would YOU call Hussein? If not an evil cretin, what would you call him? A nice guy who had a behavioral problem?! Misunderstood? I won't pretend he's in the same league as I am.I don't think it's possible to use the word "subhuman" without carrying echoes of the Nazi régime's use of the word to denote a racially inferior person, a sub-human person, an untermensch. What on earth do you think it means that makes it a reasonable, as opposed to an emotionally charged, label? The ovens burned Jews because they were seen as subhuman.
What would I call Hussein? Head of State of Iraq from July 1979 until April 2003, perhaps, having been a CIA Middle East asset from the late 1950s? The article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunity_f ... ional_law) is the background for arguing that he should have been brought before an International Court rather than judicially murdered in a setting which denied him any chance of putting the historical record straight. He's no more or less evil than Heads of State worldwide, given his Middle Eastern setting. He's been silenced rather than left to eventually express his own point of view.
As for "If not an evil cretin, what would you call him?" I wouldn't use "evil" of any person, it's an absolute term and no person is an absolute anything. I suggest you look up "cretin", perhaps you're misusing the word. It suggests an inability to think coherently, a lack of intelligence. Do you think someone can run a State for a quarter of a century with such a disability? You're trying to hamstring people with dismissive and perjorative labels rather than discuss them as people. "Untermensch" did just the same job when genocide was the order of the day.
I think "sticks and stones" applies here. What would YOU call Hussein? If not an evil cretin, what would you call him? A nice guy who had a behavioral problem?! Misunderstood? I won't pretend he's in the same league as I am.I don't think it's possible to use the word "subhuman" without carrying echoes of the Nazi régime's use of the word to denote a racially inferior person, a sub-human person, an untermensch. What on earth do you think it means that makes it a reasonable, as opposed to an emotionally charged, label? The ovens burned Jews because they were seen as subhuman.
What would I call Hussein? Head of State of Iraq from July 1979 until April 2003, perhaps, having been a CIA Middle East asset from the late 1950s? The article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunity_f ... ional_law) is the background for arguing that he should have been brought before an International Court rather than judicially murdered in a setting which denied him any chance of putting the historical record straight. He's no more or less evil than Heads of State worldwide, given his Middle Eastern setting. He's been silenced rather than left to eventually express his own point of view.
As for "If not an evil cretin, what would you call him?" I wouldn't use "evil" of any person, it's an absolute term and no person is an absolute anything. I suggest you look up "cretin", perhaps you're misusing the word. It suggests an inability to think coherently, a lack of intelligence. Do you think someone can run a State for a quarter of a century with such a disability? You're trying to hamstring people with dismissive and perjorative labels rather than discuss them as people. "Untermensch" did just the same job when genocide was the order of the day.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Death For Saddam
Accountable;450145 wrote: I know nothing of Project Censored or how valid they might be. Anyone proven to have committed attrocities even close to those by Hussein deserves an identical fate.
But to fail to prosecute some because we can't prosecute all is just silly.
again, prosecuting and executing are a different matter.
But to fail to prosecute some because we can't prosecute all is just silly.
again, prosecuting and executing are a different matter.
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Death For Saddam
spot;450151 wrote: I don't think it's possible to use the word "subhuman" without carrying echoes of the Nazi régime's use of the word to denote a racially inferior person, a sub-human person, an untermensch. What on earth do you think it means that makes it a reasonable, as opposed to an emotionally charged, word? The ovens burned Jews because they were seen as subhuman.
What would I call Hussein? Head of State of Iraq from July 1979 until April 2003, perhaps, having been a CIA Middle East asset from the late 1950s? The article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunity_f ... ional_law) is the background for arguing that he should have been brought before an International Court rather than judicially murdered in a setting which denied him any chance of putting the historical record straight. He's no more or less evil than Heads of State worldwide, given his Middle Eastern setting. He's been silenced rather than left to eventually express his own point of view.
As for "If not an evil cretin, what would you call him?" I wouldn't use "evil" of any person, it's an absolute term and no person is an absolute anything. I suggest you look up "cretin", perhaps you're misusing the word. It suggests an inability to think coherently, a lack of intelligence. Do you think someone can run a State for a quarter of a century with such a disability? You're trying to label people with dismissive and perjorative labels rather than discuss them as people. "Untermensch" did just the same job when genocide was the order of the day.
I think you're giving him way too much credit here. We're not talking about Robin Hood robbing the rich and helping the poor, and to me that seems to be what you are saying. I liken this to saying the Mafia is "not all that bad" because sure, they gun people down but they buy christmas presents for poor kids. I'm not labelling Hussein as much as I am calling him out fro what he actually is. As far as terming him subhuman, apparently it means different things to you and me. For me it has no connotation with Nazis. If it does for you, that's certainly fine. However I doubt they had a monopoly on the word and it fits Hussein to a T. People sometimes make things cloudier than they need be. This is how I feel about showing compassion to a murderer and torturer. He violated the rules of basic humanity. We have an obligation to rectify that.
He hasn't been silenced. He's been caught and penalized and rightfully so.
You dislike me to use the word cretin because Hussein is obviously brilliant because he did whatever for the State. I disagree. Hitler was brilliant as well. But for the reasons he tried to wipe out an entire race, he was bloody stupid.
I say it does not matter what good Hussein may have done for his State. It does not negate the cruelty and savagery of the acts he committed on humans. To show any more compassion to him than what he showed to his victims is unconscionable. By way of doing that, that negates the evilness of what he did. I will not refrain from calling his actions evil as there is no word I can think of that fits as appropriately.
What would I call Hussein? Head of State of Iraq from July 1979 until April 2003, perhaps, having been a CIA Middle East asset from the late 1950s? The article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunity_f ... ional_law) is the background for arguing that he should have been brought before an International Court rather than judicially murdered in a setting which denied him any chance of putting the historical record straight. He's no more or less evil than Heads of State worldwide, given his Middle Eastern setting. He's been silenced rather than left to eventually express his own point of view.
As for "If not an evil cretin, what would you call him?" I wouldn't use "evil" of any person, it's an absolute term and no person is an absolute anything. I suggest you look up "cretin", perhaps you're misusing the word. It suggests an inability to think coherently, a lack of intelligence. Do you think someone can run a State for a quarter of a century with such a disability? You're trying to label people with dismissive and perjorative labels rather than discuss them as people. "Untermensch" did just the same job when genocide was the order of the day.
I think you're giving him way too much credit here. We're not talking about Robin Hood robbing the rich and helping the poor, and to me that seems to be what you are saying. I liken this to saying the Mafia is "not all that bad" because sure, they gun people down but they buy christmas presents for poor kids. I'm not labelling Hussein as much as I am calling him out fro what he actually is. As far as terming him subhuman, apparently it means different things to you and me. For me it has no connotation with Nazis. If it does for you, that's certainly fine. However I doubt they had a monopoly on the word and it fits Hussein to a T. People sometimes make things cloudier than they need be. This is how I feel about showing compassion to a murderer and torturer. He violated the rules of basic humanity. We have an obligation to rectify that.
He hasn't been silenced. He's been caught and penalized and rightfully so.
You dislike me to use the word cretin because Hussein is obviously brilliant because he did whatever for the State. I disagree. Hitler was brilliant as well. But for the reasons he tried to wipe out an entire race, he was bloody stupid.
I say it does not matter what good Hussein may have done for his State. It does not negate the cruelty and savagery of the acts he committed on humans. To show any more compassion to him than what he showed to his victims is unconscionable. By way of doing that, that negates the evilness of what he did. I will not refrain from calling his actions evil as there is no word I can think of that fits as appropriately.
Death For Saddam
RedGlitter;450155 wrote: I think you're giving him way too much credit here.You've still not been near a dictionary, then. A cretin is constitutionally, inherently, mentally incapable. If you mean stupid or fool then call him stupid or fool, neither of those make him a cretin.
I do think it would help my understanding if you try to tell me what "subhuman" means, in your opinion. I know what a human is. It's a member of a species. It's plain dangerous to use it in any other way. The Nazi racist philosophy of some branches of the species Homo Sapiens being less human than others led to genocide. To call anyone subhuman is to re-open the gate to that particular hell. "For me it has no connotation with Nazis" is a lack on your part, you can rectify it by simply knowing there's something to find out. Subhuman doesn't mean inhumane, it means someone who can be killed without legal consequence because they fail to qualify for legal protection by not being "people".
As for "I think you're giving him way too much credit here", I don't think I've given him any credit for anything at all - could you quote what I said that you think was too much credit?
I do think it would help my understanding if you try to tell me what "subhuman" means, in your opinion. I know what a human is. It's a member of a species. It's plain dangerous to use it in any other way. The Nazi racist philosophy of some branches of the species Homo Sapiens being less human than others led to genocide. To call anyone subhuman is to re-open the gate to that particular hell. "For me it has no connotation with Nazis" is a lack on your part, you can rectify it by simply knowing there's something to find out. Subhuman doesn't mean inhumane, it means someone who can be killed without legal consequence because they fail to qualify for legal protection by not being "people".
As for "I think you're giving him way too much credit here", I don't think I've given him any credit for anything at all - could you quote what I said that you think was too much credit?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Death For Saddam
koan;450152 wrote: again, prosecuting and executing are a different matter.
which is why I avoided the term.
which is why I avoided the term.