...about an hour ago, new agencies report.
Certainly a major milestone in the conflict, I wonder how it will influence the actions of various parties. Will it lead to more violence? Or can it be the beginning of something more positive?
Printable View
...about an hour ago, new agencies report.
Certainly a major milestone in the conflict, I wonder how it will influence the actions of various parties. Will it lead to more violence? Or can it be the beginning of something more positive?
I sure hope it doesn't lead to more violence, but I believe it will :(
I think it's gotten to the point of the war that it doesn't really matter that much anymore. Fighting continues, US and allied troops are still being killed, and it's very likely that the US forces will be back there in another 10 years to overthrow the new leader.
What's more, it still doesn't answer that elusive WMD question, or bring America any closer to finding and elminating the terrorists.
One less Hussein though...
Next !!!
Those of you familiar with my penchant for setting fire to young boys will no doubt be surprised to learn that I am firmly against the death penalty even for such an odious character as this.
If I thought for one moment that Saddam's demise would lead to peace for the long suffering people of this tragic land then I would put my personal opinions on state sponsored murder on the back burner and pull the lever myself.
I think we all know though don't we that this act will merely lead to more bloodshed and factional hatred among those who believe that acts of terror and barbarism will bring a solution to the problems that face Iraq today.
So excuse me if I don't fire my sawn off shooter into the London sky this morning my friends.
A barbaric end to a barbarian? Yes.
An end to the carnage? Just a new beginning I fear.
So how long until the video shows up on Youtube?
Yay :D , bye bye Saddam.
Gay :mad: , hello new violence.
Utterly pointless. More violence to come. Couldn't he just be locked away?
Death penalty is not the solution to any problem so more likely it will create more violence.
That's 2 dictators down (including that one in Turkministan that was just a ego tripper) there's plenty more left to go.
I won't be shedding any tears for this awful man, but I am against the death penalty, even in this instance.
The US troops who found should have shot him straight away.
I think in the general scheme of things it doesn't matter much now
I don't agree. The man needed to be tried for his crimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
I never liked him, and I condamn what he did, but I saw the video and I must say that he was cool and died with honour :up:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pino
Have they shown it on TV?
It's on an ital news web-site :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian McC
Quote:
Originally Posted by pino
Ugh, I have no wish to see a man hanged, even if it is him.
A tooth for a tooth, an Eye for an eye
Still this justice is the same he dished out. Makes out that we are no better than him.
Could just of let him rot away in a 6by4 cell. with no contact for the rest of his life.
:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by pino
Remember that both the trial and the execution were carried out by Iraqi institutions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dazz9908
Just like when Saddam was in power. Things haven't changed much.Quote:
Originally Posted by studiose
The trail was never going to be fair and the outcome was inevitable.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeansBeansBeans
I've seen a video of the rope being placed around his neck but I don't think the actual hanging will be shown.
Would you favour a world where the state is able to execute un-armed suspects without trial?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
Interesting statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Before the invasion, Iraq was a stable dictatorship whose citizens could be executed basically because Saddam Hussein didn't like them. Now, Iraq is an unstable democracy whose citizens can only be executed if a court of law finds them guilty of a grievous crime.
Things haven't changed much...?
Saddam's regime had courts too. I'm sure Iraqi citizens can still be executed if those now in power don't like them and claim it's a grievous crime in the eyes of the current government. The claims about death squads in Iraqi police and torture in Iraqi prisons may not be totally ungrounded.Quote:
Originally Posted by studiose
Saddam was hanged because he punished those who tried to assasinate him. I'm sure it was a grievous crime in his eyes. I'm sure every nation would punish those trying to kill their leader. For example, the man who tried to assasinate Ronald Reagan in the 80s is still in prison. Isn't it inhumane? You don't get that long prison sentence just for an attempted murder here in Finland.
I suppose before the overthrow, people had to watch out for the government, now it's just anybody you don't know.
I feel sorry for the Iraqi people that have to live with this :\
Let's not forget that the punishment was the killing of 148 people without trial. Can you please list all countries that are likely to produce this kind of a response to an attempted assassination of their leader?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Different countries have different punishments. The severity of punishments in Finland is by no means the universal ideal, but just one of the options.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
There a significant difference, however, between trying someone according to the laws of a country and simply killing opponents. Surely you must realize that. :s
FOX News roundup time?Quote:
Originally Posted by studiose
Seems there has been no shortage of executed citizens that are tortured and then shot in the back of the head, blown up etc. in Iraq daily.
Executed is the correct wording.
There has not been a need of a busy court doing overtime to bring it about.
Or is it just collateral damage?
No, it's murder. Carried out by persons who are not sanctioned by the Iraqi government.Quote:
Originally Posted by TOgoFASTER
I think that answers your first question. Different countries have different punishments.Quote:
Originally Posted by studiose
I'm sure you as an Estonian don't understand all aspects of the Iraqi mentality. In Iraq much of the population want to kill their neighbours who want to kill them. A dictator must be REALLY brutal to stand out from the brutality of an ordinary Joe (or should I say Ahmed) and rise up as the winner.
I'm quite sure the police under Saddam's rule didn't get a court order and a note from Saddam every time they wanted to kill someone either.Quote:
Originally Posted by studiose
Are you, by any chance, aware of some instances of police violence in Iraq and are trying to give the impression that the current Iraqi administration is just as oppressive as the previous one?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Indeed, if the killing of these 148 people was carried out according to the laws of Iraq at that time, my argument would be severely weakened. Was it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
I think he just ordered his security forces to squelch an uprising. That could happen without a court order in any country experiencing a revolution and still be perfectly legal. Did the security forces use unnecessary force to complete their task? Possibly or maybe even probably.Quote:
Originally Posted by studiose
Unstable yes, but far from a democracy, or in how many democracys forming of government does foregin countries, in this case occuping forces get involved usually?Quote:
Originally Posted by studiose
I don't like executions but I believe that this is an important step in re-establishing law and order in Iraq. Most of you were born in democratic countries and you are not aware of one aspect in dictatorships.
Saddam led his country for so long and so successfully because he was feared by the all the people in the structures of power (the punishment was very often death for insubordonation). The fear accumulated over the years (especially that the population isn't very educated - you can lead better uneducated individuals) becoming a myth among his people.
Even when he was detained by the Americans, these poeple that still kept an influence among their ethnic groups still feared Saddam. They thought it's still possible for Saddam to make a hocus-pocus and return to power. And the consequences would have been dramatic for those who joined forces with the US-led coalition or the new Iraqi police. So it was necessary to send them a clear message: SADDAM IS NEVER GONNA RETURN.
It was the same situation 17 years ago during the Romanian revolution. Communist dictator Ceausescu was trialed (in record time) and executed for the same reason: he was feared by those who were leading important sectors of the Army or the economy. They shot him avoiding to hit his face so that everyone could see him dead on TV. He wasn't going to return to power. A reformist from the second row of the communist party assumed power in the country and everyone felt secure, joining the democracy. This is how it works!
I think you're trying to confuse. An uprising is a large popular movement whose aim is to replace the ruling regime with a new one. An assassination attempt is an action of under-ground rebels whose aim is to eliminate one (or a few) most hated member(s) of the ruling regime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
What happened in Dujail in 1982 was as similar to an uprising as a cat is to a tomato.
I think Estonia has experienced that kind of governments. But maybe Studiose is so young that he has forgotten.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomi
I think there are plenty of examples, for instance West Germany after WW2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomi