Saddam sentenced to hang for war crimes [Archive]

Asilynne

5th November 2006, 02:58 PM

I personally think that death is too good for him. Think of this, he dies, after that he doesnt feel anything. Its over for him, no more suffering. If your religious then yes after he dies he will suffer for eternety, well, in that case he will reach that end without any help from anyone. To me, its more painful to rot somewhere for the rest of your life, without freedom, knowing why you were in that situation, than it is to die. And I dont really believe in killing criminals anyway, ideally having them rot in prison is a far worse punishment, and it is not putting the guilt of murder on anyones shoulders. But I know in reality housing thousands of criminals is a detrimint to society and the economy and its not cost effective, and simply throwing them on an island to survive on their own doesnt work. And I do know why they sentenced Saddam to death, Saddams people wouldnt have it any other way. Had Saddam be sentanced to life in an American prison they would be unhappy, and if he were released to an iraqi prison there would be the chance of him being freed by his supporters. So I guess politically this is the best choice.
But Im not going to watch and I dont think anyone should let their children watch. Its still a death and I dont think its healthy to have a child cheer for the death of another no matter how cruel they were. My 2 cents ^v^

DarkTemplarZero

5th November 2006, 03:18 PM

Eh, the death penalty. How hard I've worked over the last year and a half to fight it, thankfully New Jersey's put a stop to it for now, but that's beside the point. I can't believe they decided hanging though, that's just sick. The man was cruel and twisted, but that doesn't mean we should stoop to his level to get revenge. Besides, the trial could not even be called a trial, according to Amnesty it was "shabby affair, marred by serious flaws", some of Saddam's lawyers were murdered, hell even one of the judges left because of "political interference" (http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/01/14/saddam_court_ruffled_by_judges_wish_to_quit/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News).
Also, this execution's only going to make things worse. Sectarian violence will go through the roof, even Russia's saying that the execution will have "catastrophic consequences" (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061105/ts_afp/iraqtrialsaddamworld_061105144116)

"But I know in reality housing thousands of criminals is a detrimint to society and the economy and its not cost effective"
Au contraire, it is actually more cost-effective to put somebody in jail for life without the possibility of parole than to execute them in the United States, mostly due to the lengthy appeals process; http://www.ecpm-us.org/issues_costs.shtml

The_Missing_Link

5th November 2006, 03:31 PM

Well, it was Iraq's call to hang him as I assume they still practice that over there. And the sooner he's gone from this world, the better. People like him don't deserve to live

mr_pikachu

5th November 2006, 03:37 PM

While I understand the sentiment of fighting the death penalty, and while I do think that sometimes death is too good for really bad offenders, I think there are overriding factors in this case. For one thing, this is what Iraq decided, not us. If hanging is their method of execution, then I'm hardly going to argue with it being applied to Saddam.

And for another, the death penalty is really the only safe way to assure that our Saddam problems don't continue. Seeing as Hussein was, for many years, the leader of a country who gained many followers, it is quite plausible that certain groups of people would want to break him out of prison. This is more true in his case than in most others. Considering the great destruction he caused when he was in power, I don't think we can take the risk of him ever being free again, even if it's relatively small.

.hacker

5th November 2006, 03:42 PM

As many others have said, Iraq chose to hang Saddam as punishment. He deserves to suffer for the crimes he committed. I know that sounds cruel for some, but it seems "fitting."

Roy Karrde

5th November 2006, 05:05 PM

mr_pikachu

5th November 2006, 05:11 PM

Roy Karrde

5th November 2006, 05:15 PM

Becuase you know it will be withon the Torrent websites within a hour ~.^
All kidding aside, this is a Iraqi moment, and it shouldn't be treated as a event up there with Wrestlemania 35, and George Foreman vs Mike Tyson. They should be allowed their moment of closure.

DarkTemplarZero

5th November 2006, 05:30 PM

Good, with him gone most of the Baths party rebels will have nothing to fight for. Now comes the question of should they show it on TV in Iraq. Now don't get me wrong I dont think we should have it on Pay Per View over here. But in a country in which this man has killed hundreds of thousands. Who has tortured and done such a blite on the people, should they not be able to view his death through out Iraq? I hope so, so many people need closure, and many will hopefully find it when they see this man die.

Nothing to fight for? Your enemy brutally and perhaps even publicly executes your leader without giving him the right to a fair trial in a competent court and refused to allow him to have legal counsel for the first year of his imprisonment and NOW you have nothing to fight for? >.< Think about what you're saying for at least three seconds before you post it. Quite the contrary, Saddam will become a martyr for terrorism and anti-American sentiment all over the world.

And secondly, public executions? What are we in, the dark ages? That's so barbaric. Taking pleasure in the death of another is cruel, twisted, and barbaric, no matter what they've done.

Finally, I'm surprised to see what Saddam was convicted for: executing 148 people including children. I find it ironic that he's been sentenced to death by an inept and politically driven court because he ordered the execution of 148 people through inept and politically driven courts.

Roy Karrde

5th November 2006, 05:32 PM

^ Remember guys lets keep this topic from breaking out in another flame war. With that in mind don't feed the troll guys.

mr_pikachu

5th November 2006, 05:35 PM

You make a valid point about the personal closure aspect of it, Roy. I suppose I hadn't thought about it that way.

Besides, you're right about the Torrent/YouTube thing, anyway. Somebody there is bound to record it.

DarkTemplarZero

5th November 2006, 05:38 PM

^ Remember guys lets keep this topic from breaking out in another flame war. With that in mind don't feed the troll guys.

Relax, nobody's said anything overly stupid yet, although that's pushing it. That and the fact that you're expressing your support for public executions.

What the hell? You actually want to WATCH? Oh man, that's really twisted. I'm really afraid.

Roy Karrde

5th November 2006, 05:46 PM

You know Mr_Pikachu I didn't even think about You Tube. As for being bound to record it, of course it will be recorded. Most likely shown on TV so that the Iraqi Government can prove that it is the end of Saddam's hateful regeme. That and I just think the millions he has wronged would want to see it. I know I would want to see the killer of my sister, or brother, or parents put to death.

Jeff

5th November 2006, 08:11 PM

Politically motivated or not, he was tried by his own country and they decided he should swing for what he did. In the end, what matters is if you agree with the decision. He killed and tortured his own people, anyone who disagreed with him, so I think he deserves it.

Knight of Time

5th November 2006, 08:42 PM

Well, this is probably some of the best news (although not the very best) I've ever heard.

I've always been against him, but now, I'm glad (yet surprised) to hear he's going to die by hanging.

One thing's for sure, this punishment is a rare one these days.

Magmar

5th November 2006, 10:59 PM

Blademaster

5th November 2006, 11:28 PM

Well, I don't approve of capital punishment in any way...

But there is a lesson to be learned here. (http://toccionline.kizash.com/movies/everybody_hates_saddam/)

See, kids? When you act like a malicious nutjob for 30 years and then act like a total dip**** at your trial, this is what happens!

DarkTemplarZero

6th November 2006, 04:43 PM

Good riddance to bad rubbish. Off with his head! I wanna watch it on Channel 6, to hell with Pay Per View. I'll make me some popcorn, too.

Why *should* he get a fair trial? Nobody he killed got a fair trial. And whoooo cares if we stooped to his level. Noooot meeeee. He's in Iraq, all the way out there, where he's getting the noose for being a douche. Goodbye, asshole.

Everyone deserves a fair trial, regardless of what they've done. Doesn't anybody believe in the principles set forth in the Bill of Rights nowadays? And yes nobody he killed got a fair trial, but now Iraq has a chance to put that behind them and say that from now on we will live up to international standards and say that everyone has the right to a fair trial, and yet they failed miserably. It's easy to say that Saddam isn't human for what he did, but that's the same justification that he had for killing all those people. As Ghandi once said, "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind".

And I really don't think he acted like a total dipshit. The man refused an offer of release if he ordered a ceasefire, refused to stand trial unless the horrific conditions he was held in would be improved and they would stop torturing him, and began a hunger strike because his lawyers were being assassinated left and right because they had no protection at all. Hell, when he was sentenced he encouraged Iraqis to unify against sectarian strife and not to take revenge against the "foreign invaders". If he wasn't a twisted dictator and guilty of dispicable crimes, I would call him heroic for standing up to the new Iraq's laughable excuse for a judicial system.

Weasel Overlord

6th November 2006, 06:58 PM

[color=silver]DTZ, I think you're being a little bit reactionary here, dude.

Personally, I think that he did get a fair trial. He had lawyers, what more can you ask for, being a horrible, murdering tyrant?

And also, hanging's not the painful death it's made out to be. The rope's measured precisely so that the dimensions are right for a good clean fall which snaps the neck instantly, instead of strangling the 'hangee' to death slowly and painfully.

And while I certainly wouldn't ever watch the film, or understand why anyone would want to, I also think it should probably be available for those who need closure, as someone's already said.

Roy Karrde

6th November 2006, 07:07 PM

You know DTZ some would call Hitler heroic for things that he did in helping Germany, that does not negate what he did. Nor does one act negate the millions that Saddam killed, hurt, and tortured.

Iraq is trying to find their place in the world. They should not have to stand up to international standards becuase international standards do not apply to what Saddam Hussain did. The European Union and those protesting did not experience Saddam's hatred, and to quote Sisko from Deep Space Nine "It's easy to be a saint in paradise".

Where am I getting with this? Well if we are holding Iraq up to International Standards, and how they have just come out from the horrible opression of a tyrant. Than Iraq should be held up to how say France acted post World War 2 when those that were part of Hitler's regime were placed on trial. Or how France and the rest acted at the end of World War 1.

International Standards should not apply to each situation becuase each situation is different.

As for the trial, he could have had OJ's lawyer, and he would still have been killed. No matter how many revolving door lawyers he had, the evidence was there. And you cannot discount that. Pictures of those that Saddam had ordered killed, testimonys from the families, signed documents of his. They were all there. He was guilty and everyone knew it, but it should be applauded that Iraq went through the process of a trial for this scum. No matter how many sucide bombs happened, no matter how many IEDs were planted, they continued on to show the evidence, and in the end deliver the correct verdict.

Jeff

6th November 2006, 08:31 PM

My younger brothers were questioning why Saddam was given the death penalty, even though he used to be the leader of a country, and I asked them "If we had captured Hitler, what do you think we would have done with him? Just look at what we did to other Nazis guilty of crimes against humanity"

SoulflameNinetales

6th November 2006, 08:47 PM

Ok, giving Saddam death I pretty much expected.

Death by hanging?!? Isn't that a little brutual?

I know that Saddam was not a nice person at all, but killing him by hanging, while giving many closure will give others the incentve to hate not only America but every other country who came over to free the people from a harsh dictorship (thro I realise that could of been also economically moviated, and not a selfless action) where people could die for having a bad day in the presense of Saddam.

I believe both Iraq's new gov't and those who were involved in depositing Saddam from power use make thier next moves carefully. I can see this either turning extremely ugly or a great win for freedom or anywhere in between. Thier decisions will decide what the future holds and even though I try to be an optimist, I cannot say that this news won't haunt me sometime in the future.

Roy Karrde

6th November 2006, 08:54 PM

Well I say let the Punishment fit the Crime. Saddam gave Hundreds of Thousands death that was a whole lot more brutal than hanging. Besides Iraq cannot really pony up for those fansy lethal injection machines. As for those that hate America, they can find many reasons to hate America. But those that hate Saddam and want to see his rotting carcus dangle from a three foot long rope. Far, FAR out weigh those that want to kill Americans. And please lets not start any of this Blood for Oil crap, Blood for Oil was never true, we never went into Iraq for Oil. That argument was just cooked up by radical leftists in a desperate attempt to attack the war in Iraq even more.

DarkTemplarZero

6th November 2006, 09:52 PM

First of all, I didn't call Saddam heroic. I agree he is a twisted and evil man, but I said that his idea to stand against the ridiculous Iraqi court was justified.

As for Weasel, what you can ask for is not to be tortured, to have a trial by your peers free of political influence, and to give some security to your lawyers so they don't get shot.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."
The Sixth Amendment. While it might not apply in Iraq, I'd like to think that it sets an example for all judicial systems.

Hey Roy Karrde, fellow Star Trek fan, I see? Not exactly my favorite Sisko quote, although The Maquis was a great two part episode. However, I wasn't a big fan of DS9 in general, you know why? It diverged from the ideals of Star Trek and of Gene Roddenberry in order to get good ratings, because Star Trek was about idealism and nowadays idealism doesn't sell. Here's two better quotes from the original series episodes A Taste of Armageddon and The Ultimate Computer:
"[War] is instinctive. But the instinct can be fought. We're human beings with the blood of a million savage years on our hands! But we can stop it. We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today!"
"Compassion -- that's the one thing no machine ever had. Maybe it's the one thing that keeps men ahead of them."
It's easy to make excuses, but it takes true strength of spirit to be the better man and say that "You have wronged me horribly, but I will have mercy on you because I am a better human being"

And such is the beauty of International Standards: every nation is held to them. There is no hypocrisy, no double standard, either you meet them or you don't. So do you believe that the genocide in Darfur is fine because there's a different "situation" in Sudan than say the United States? Are you saying it is alright for China to have forced labor camps and execute thousands of people per year because they're in a "different situation"? Is it alright for people to be thrown in prison for peacefully protesting their government's actions in Belarus and Turkmenistan because it's a "different situation"? Some things deserve to be put in black and white, and the right to a fair trial is one of them.

True Saddam would have been found guilty even if the trial held up to international standards, but that is beside the point. The point is that he was tortured, denied right to legal counsel, etc. No matter how you look at it, that is WRONG. Every international standard (i.e. Geneva Conventions), the U.S. Bill of Rights (Fifth and Sixth Amendments), etc. are all very clear about this; no harm without due process of law and adequate trials, regardless of the crime.

"But those that hate Saddam and want to see his rotting carcus dangle from a three foot long rope. Far, FAR out weigh those that want to kill Americans"
I don't know about that man; http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/2F066FFC-2EB0-4219-A9C0-A20BC5FCDE8F.htm
Sunni Muslims seem to miss ruling Iraq and not having people being shot in the streets.

Roy Karrde

6th November 2006, 10:03 PM

You cannot put International Standards on Human Emotion, you cannot blindly place laws on them, which is what your trying to do. And as you should know, nothing in this world is in Black and White, when you place things in Black and White standards you fail. As for Saddam being tortured? That is laughable, show me any proof that he was tortured, other than his own ravings? Saddam had rights to legal council but he waved it, he fired his lawyers, would not talk to them, and kicked some out.

And for your website, you post Aljazeera as a link? The most biased POS in all of the middle east. C'mon first Wikipedia, and now Al Jazeera. And to try and show that those sickafant followers of Saddam far outweigh those millions that wish to see Saddam pay for his Crimes against Humanity, is like saying that there were more Ex Nazis in Post World War 2 Germany that long for the Good ole days, than those that were hurt by the Nazi's crimes.

And to keep the roll going, I will end it with a quote.

SISKO
They'll remember. It'll take
time, and it won't be easy, but
eventually people in this century
will remember how to care.

BASHIR
But it makes you wonder, doesn't it?
Are humans really any different than
Cardassians... or Romulans? If push
came to shove, if something disastrous
happened to the Federation, and we
got frightened enough, or desperate
enough, how would we react? Would
we stay true to our ideals... or
would we just end up... here... right
back where we started?

DarkTemplarZero

6th November 2006, 11:26 PM

You can place international standards on murder and mistreatment. Besides, if you can't place laws on human emotion does that mean that if somebody is angry at someone else, they have the right to assault them? That's laws on human emotion for ya. And bruises and blood clots don't lie, Saddam was beaten. More than one of his lawyers were assassinated.

And to you everything is biased. Al Jazeera may put a spin on things, but the general idea is still there. If you won't believe that, here's the AFP, in all of it's reactionary and anti-semetic glory, saying the same thing: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061105/wl_mideast_afp/iraqtrialsaddamsunnishiite

Also, I believe you mean "sycophantic"

I'll respond with another quote:

"There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. " - Abraham Lincoln in The Savage Curtain

Roy Karrde

6th November 2006, 11:54 PM

Again where is the evidence of Saddam being tortured? We have pictures of Prisoner Abuse, but do you not think that the same would come out for Saddam? As for International Standards, where were these International Standards when Saddam was butchering people? Do we expect that these victums should suddenly become saints? Do you believe that these countries that made these International Standards should have lived up to them back in the post World War 2 era? If so what sort of retribution or punishment should those countries pay? Those countries are now pointing fingers at Iraq for their decision, when in the past they have made the same decisions.

Every country that is pointing a finger at Iraq in the modern day era should take a step back and put themselves in the shoes of the Iraqis, and if they cannot they should atleast take a long look at their own history.

A democracy takes a long time to acomplish, Iraq has had one for what two years? Now that isn't saying their decision is right or wrong, but to hold Iraq up to scrutiny, especially with how they dispose of one of the worst butchers in all history, is just utterly and completely wrong. Again like I quoted, it's easy to be a saint in paradise.

As for the article, I never said it wasn't true, just that it was biased. Now of course there will be those that live in Iraq that hate the verdict, but those that rejoice in it far far outweigh those that do not like it. That is just common sense. Especially since Saddam's people were already in the minority.

Anyway to end it I will give you another quote that I think sums up the Pre War mentality with Iraq, when Saddam was playing Hide and Go Seek with Weapon Inspectors.

Sisko: Maybe so. But one thing's for certain. We're losing the peace. Which means a war could be our only hope.

Master Rudy

7th November 2006, 12:56 AM

Zero I personally believe you should quit while your ahead. Every case you try to make is extremely biased and on one extreme. Let's get one thing straight. I don't like war but I do feel that it's sometimes an evil that is needed. You've got no real proof that the Iraqi government did not do the best they could to give him a fair trial under the extreme circumstances. You say no one would provide him with a laywer? The guy had his laywers being murdered left and right at first. After the first few people were scared and did not want to defend him for fear of being killed. Having the man act like a manic with all his outbursts during the trial sure as hell didn't help his case either. You say it was handled all wrong? I feel it was all as right as it could be given the situation. Wrong would have been blowing his brains out the moment they dug him out of his hole. Have you any idea how easy it would have been to do so? Saddam was armed when troops found him and all it would have taken were several dishonest solders to claim his came charging at them with his gun. But they didn't do that. They did the right thing, brought him in, cleaned him up, gave him humane treatment (that whole tourtue thing is bullshit and you know it) and last but not least let the man stand trial with a judge and jury. Try to tell me how that is all wrong and horrible? And if your going to claim he was bruised again find me pics. Blood clots? While I'm sure some cases of tourtue could cause it there are other causes as well such as various medical conditions. Try again Zero.

On another note I feel it's left wing extremists like you that make it hard for our troops to do the job they signed up for. They've constantly got to watch every little move they make for fear of hearing the cries of "IT'S WRONG! THAT'S IMMORAL!!!!" War is not a pretty thing. I will not deny the fact that ugly things come out of it. However extreme things happen in war that I personally feel are hard to judge with common laws. Imagine if you will a young teenage boy of maybe about 13 or 14 firing at a US solder. Or how about Vietnam where there were stories of very young children that had bombs straped to them that would explode the moment they got close. What the hell are you suppose to do then? Many will admit that they have done things in a war that they are not proud of and would not normally do? In a situation that is life or death the only thing in a solders mind is to stay alive and keep whoever he may be protecting alive as well. When your survival instincts kick in rational though and common laws go out the window. I pray to god that if this country ever got into a situation where they had to bring the draft back that you are not picked. I can seriously imagine you going on and on in an extreme situation about everything morally wrong with what your doing as your being shot at while your friends die.

And no doubt your going to pick apart my post, Roy's post or anyone elses post that you don't agree with. Your welcome to your opinions but do not try to present them as fact without evidence. Every time you provide either Wiki or the Daily Show as your proof you make a fool of yourself. And for christsake Al Jazeera? Give me a break. That is easily the most biased and most anti-American news channel in the world. Anything they report is either going to make America look bad or is going to make Saddam and Osama look like heroes. And while we're quoting great TV shows here I feel a need to quote one of the best characters in the history of 24:

Sec. of Defense James Heller-Spare me your sixth grade Michael Moore logic

DarkTemplarZero

7th November 2006, 08:39 PM

My views are biased and extreme? I simply believe in holding everyone to one standard, I believe in consistent logic. You don't seem to believe anything I say just because I don't agree with you. However, you haven't made a single decent point or cited a single source for anything you've said, so how can you insult my sources when your "source" is whatever you happen to remember at the moment?

http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGMDE140372006
^ Amnesty International's Director of the Middle East Programme calls it "a shabby affair, marred by serious flaws that call into question the capacity of the tribunal, as currently established, to administer justice fairly, in conformity with international standards". I think this dude knows a bit about what he's talking about, or at least more than you considering he specializes in the Middle East.

Humane treatment? They refused him access to a freaking lawyer for a year, he was held without being formally charged of anything. Plus according to the red cross Saddam was wounded when he was examined about a month after his imprisonment: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/22/saddam.lawyer/index.html. And I didn't say nobody would provide him with a lawyer, I said that his lawyers were not protected, judging by these few articles: http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Saddams-lawyer-assassinated/2006/06/22/1150845265388.html, http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=13435, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/09/wirq09.xml (And before you say that these articles are "biased", you can't deny that the facts in them are true, the conclusions might be spun differently, but it doesn't change the fact that these lawyers were killed). At least three seperate lawyers representing Saddam were killed during the trial. Here in the United States, we would call that a "mistrial", as one cause for a mistrial is "Misconduct by a party, juror, or an outside actor, if it prevents due process". I think THREE lawyers being assassinated constitutes preventing due process. QED.

And yes war is not pretty, but I am not talking about war crimes at the moment, that's completely off topic. And in response to Roy Karrde, you don't think that Iraq should be held up to scrutiny? Then what the hell is the point of trying to establish democracy if whenever they do something wrong you say, "Oh, they're making progress, it's ok"? I really dispise double standards. Iraqi progress with democracy is directly related to how they handle trials (I'd like to think that Democracies ensure fair and just trials), so the "victory" in Iraq is related to whether or not they are able to accurately and impartially carry out trials, and judging by the Saddam trial they're failing miserably.

Lastly, here's a quote from the great William T. Riker, "If we felt any human loss as keenly as we feel one of those close to us, human history would be far less bloody."

Roy Karrde

7th November 2006, 09:01 PM

Right now I am busy watching the poll results so I skimmed the top and am going to reply with that. Amnesty International has had a hard on for the whole Anti Iraq War Movement, I wouldn't be surprised that they spoke up against it. Infact I would be shocked that they didn't speak out against it. As for the charges filed, how about crimes against humanity? Or is that too broad of a range?

As for the Lawyer thing, I have searched many times and never found a article on it, for any credibility in that clame at all you need to have some kind of proof.

For the Red Cross thing, look at his picture when he was taken in, the way he was living looks as if he was wounded already.

For the Lawyers being killed, this was a Iraqi moment, it was their dictator, their butcher, so they should have a right to try them to prove that they are legit. Saddam's lawyers were killed, the judges were also killed, as were the prosecutors and everyone else assosiated with the trial. Saddam's lawyers being killed does not mean the evidence changes, he was guilty, he knew it, everyone knew it.

As for your remarks made to me, point to me one democracy that started off exactly right from the beginning? The US who had just fought their own war for independence spent ten years trying to reistablish themseleves. And it seems that to you the only way that you would see Iraq as a proper democracy, only after three years, is for them to release Saddam. Is there no other possibility that you will accept other than he should be freed? Or placed in jail for X amount of time? Were the thousands of victums given that such luxery? He was guilty, he was tried in Iraq, he was found guilty by Iraqis, and he will be sentenced by Iraqis. End of story.

Found a interesting quote, just replace Dukat with Saddam, and Sisko with Bush. Or Bin Ladin and Bush, but Saddam killed millions and so did Dukat, and both try to justify it.

Dukat: It always comes down to that, doesn't it? My 'crimes'. I'm such a monster. Such an evil man. Behold Benjamin Sisko - supreme arbiter of right and wrong in the universe. A man of such high moral caliber that he can sit in judgement on the rest of us.

Sisko: What the hell do you want from me!? My approval? Is that what this is all about? You want me to give you permission to cause more suffering and death? Well, if that's what you're after, you might as well pull out that phaser and end this right now, because I won't give it to you!

DarkTemplarZero

7th November 2006, 09:31 PM

"Saddam has not yet been officially charged with any crimes." From that site that I just gave you which had the Red Cross thing. That was written one month after he had been captured.

http://www.dawn.com/2004/05/11/int2.htm <-- Saddam's lawyers denied access.

True Saddam would have been found guilty either way, but that is irrelevant. Fair trial, regardless of the circumstances, is one of the primary aspects of democracy. Without it, a democracy is not a democracy. "And it seems that to you the only way that you would see Iraq as a proper democracy, only after three years, is for them to release Saddam". Where did I say that Saddam should be released? I said he was not given a fair trial nor did the trial meet international standards in any way, not that he should be released.

"He was guilty, he was tried in Iraq, he was found guilty by Iraqis, and he will be sentenced by Iraqis. End of story."
So by that logic you believe that Military Tribunals in Darfur sentencing people to death for selling tea without a license (See Amnesty International 2005 Report) is right? Those people were tried in Sudan, found guilty by the Sudanese Government, and were sentenced by the Sudanese Government. End of story. Or how about sentencing women to six years in prison for even seeking an abortion in Libya? Or being sentenced to eight years in prison for peacefully protesting the government's response to the Chernobyl Disaster in Belarus, as was the case with Professor Yury Bandazhevsky? What do you believe about that?

Following the quotes trend. You may think one mistrial is ok, but how many does it take for it not to be ok? Can we allow Iraq to become another China, Uzbekistan, Libya, Russia, Belarus, Sudan, etc.? ;

Admiral Matthew Dougherty: Jean-Luc, we're only moving 600 people.
Jean-Luc Picard: How many people does it take, Admiral, before it becomes wrong? A thousand? Fifty thousand? A million? How many people does it take, Admiral?

Roy Karrde

7th November 2006, 10:23 PM

Saddam was shown the evidence that was overwhelming against him, he was given over a year I believe with his lawyers. And this is the most scruitinized trial since OJ, where is the misconduct? All you can bring against him is a change in lawyers which is allowed. I'm sure if I searched and found trials in which Lawyers died here in the US either by natural or un natural causes, the trial would still go on. He is also giving a appeal, if there was any way to prove he got a unfair trial, then it will be turned over in appelet court. The Iraq Democracy has given Saddam more than he deserves in terms of rights.

As for those others, were they allowed a appelet court to over turn their verdict? Were they allowed the 1,000+ lawyer team working inside and outside of the country that Saddam was given? Were those allowed to see their evidence? To confront their accusers? How can you compare what Saddam was given to those mockery of trials?

And again how was this a mistrial other than the loss of a few of all the lawyers he was given. Were the new lawyers that were brought in not allowed ample time to work on the case? Today we have cases in which lawyers are brought in at the last moment, how is that any different? Was there any proof that the presiding judge that gave the verdict in anyway biased? I have been asking where is the evidence? So where is it? Where is the proof of such misconduct other than the rantings of a far left liberal organization?

Dukat: Of course I hated them! Their superstitions and their cries for sympathy, their treachery and their lies, their smug superiority and their stiff-necked obstinacy, their stupid earrings and their broken, wrinkled noses! Yes, I hated them, I hated everything about them!

Sisko: You should have killed them all.

Dukat: Yes! Yes! That's right, isn't it? I knew it! I've always known it! I should have killed every last one of them. I should have turned their planet into a graveyard the likes of which the Galaxy has never seen! I should have killed them all.

RedStarWarrior

8th November 2006, 12:58 AM

Saddam is getting what he deserves, plain and simple.

Razola

8th November 2006, 04:32 AM

Hanging really isn't that cruel. If you want to discuss barbaric, Middle Age executions were basically dissections while the victim was still alive.

Issues like death penalty are sticky to cover. I think robbing a guy of over half his life, sticking him in a stinking cell, is crueler than the death penalty, for example. We can fire off snarky quotes on it all day long, but there's really not much in ways of statistics or facts besides gut feeling. Unless there's a "Cruelogram" or some measurement out these days.

But there's no reason to get primal over it. We don't need to hoot like apes around a public hangin'. Besides enraging his own supporters, it just looks bad, ya know? Kill him privately and move on.

Asilynne

8th November 2006, 04:38 AM

I dont have much time to post but I have to say one thing. Stop quoting Star Trek please. I love the show dont get me wrong. I love all of them (except DS9 and Enterprise). And that is why please shut up, because you are ruining my show. I wont be able to hear Riker or Picard or Kirk from now on without thinking of this bitter never-going-to-end argument. Its just plain annoying, so please be humane to my show and quote something I dont care about like Rudy did! lol
*starts the "Save the Star Trek foundation" and starts pickiting*

Anyway, just one comment about the whole thing with the news programs putting a spin on things. While its true that the facts are there despite the spin, the spin DOES matter because while its a fact saddams lawyers were murdered, it might not be for the reason the biased things give. The "what" is true, the "why" isnt. So the spin does matter and its naiive to think otherwise.

And to jump on the bandwagon heres some quotes from something I dont really care TOO much about lol
Gundam Wing:

People who commit war are stupid, but the blood they spill is not meaningless. -- Dr. J

And I cant find the exact quote but here it is paraphrased:
Heero: You want peace but you arent willing to fight for it? Anything worth having is worth fighting for, for how can you appreciate the peace if it is not hardwon? For me peace is worth fighting for.

That quote is probably a lil messed up from the original but the idea is there.

Razola

8th November 2006, 04:41 AM

A witty saying proves nothing.
-Voltaire

Are we done all the fancy quotes?

Weasel Overlord

8th November 2006, 07:35 AM

[color=silver]Thank god you got there first Asi, I'm glad I'm not the only one bloody fed up of all the Star Trek quotes. As much as I do adore that show, you could at least have picked a better person to quote than Sisko! Deep Space Nine was easily the ballsiest of all the series'... but enough on that.

Zero, what is it that makes you believe fair trials are linked to democracy so deeply? All you keep saying is 'fair trials are one of the main aspects of democracy' blah blah, but you fail to take into account the actual meaning of the word. And I quote dictionary.com here, and before anyone complains about this not being a valid source, well, I'd have used the OED Online, but I don't subscribe to it, and I'm not on my Language server to be able to use it.

de‧moc‧ra‧cy –noun, plural -cies.
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

[color=silver]And from this we can see that the 'main' aspect of democracy is, in fact, the right of the people to vote for their government.

And let's not forget that America certainly wasn't the first democracy, so don't act like it was. Rome was the first democracy, the Republic, established at around the same time as the Greek democracy. And if you like, you can twist my quotes and words to whatever end you wish, but the right to a free trial is only vaguely linked to the idea of a democracy.

And before you retaliate, which no doubt you will, let's remember this small fact. I am in no way in support of public execution, hanging or otherwise, and nor do I agree with criminals not receiving a fair trial. Maybe I should put that fact in bold, just so that you get it...

Oh, and another thing, from a British point of view, I really do think that you Americans take things like this far too seriously. *ducks from all the patriots/thrown vegetables/general anger which is sure to follow such a statement* I mean, sure, I'm patriotic too, I sort of like my country I suppose, (even if it is rainy, grey and boring, heh) but I wouldn't even fight for it. I'm not a violent person. At all. And the whole army thing sickens me to the core... but what can you do, eh? While men rule our country, war is sure to follow... *ducks again from all the righteous manly anger*

oh, and don't take that to mean that I'm a feminist either. Cos believe me, I'm far from it, snigger...

And hey, I don't even know if there was a point to my ramble! Oh yeah, stop bloody arguing about everything people ever say, Zero. It shows a complete disrespect for other people's opinions, and not to mention puts you in a really bad light. It's also really irritating to read, so just bloody quit it.

RedStarWarrior

8th November 2006, 02:12 PM

Sorry, but the Republic of Rome wasn't a true Democracy, unless you consider only allowing property-owning males to vote as a true Democracy. The right to a fair trial is a part of American Democracy...why people think that applies to Iraq, I have no clue.

Lastly, men don't rule our country, as there are many high-ranking women in our government.

Saffire Persian

8th November 2006, 10:05 PM

Well, I'm personally not going to gainsay the decision. The punishment is fitting, at least, in some degree, as we can all see that he was definitely a tyrant that someone needed to be taken care of. While I don't like the concept of killing at all, I think it's probably a measure that had to be done in this case, as grusome as it is.

Like Mr_Pikachu said, it's the only way to make sure Saddam doesn't continue his work. People may follow his lead and attempt to take his place, though.

One of the things that could go wrong with this Death Penalty decision, though, is that Saddam will likely be considered by many of his followers, to be a martyr. And I personally don't want to see him glorified for his crimes. And had the decision been for him to rot for life in jail, I would be just as content.

DarkTemplarZero

8th November 2006, 11:20 PM

Ah Weasel Overlord, you read Dozor? What a coincidence, my dad's a big fan, I've never picked it up sadly though.

"the spin DOES matter because while its a fact saddams lawyers were murdered, it might not be for the reason the biased things give"
I wasn't talking about the reasons Saddam's lawyers were murdered, I was simply pointing out that they WERE murdered. I did not say they were assassinated for political reasons, I simply say that they interfered with due process, because how can you have due process when your lawyers are being murdered left and right? Although I really do appreciate your support for classic Star Trek series, without the angst of DS9 and Enterprise, although both were awesome series IMO.

Now for Weasel Overlord's statement, proof by contradiction. Assume that you have a Democracy where trials can be held arbitrarily and without conformity to international standards, no writ of habeas corpus. Therefore, the government has the ability to throw people in prison for no reason, so what is to stop them from imprisoning people who don't agree with them? That would be more of a totalitarian oligarchy a la George Orwell's 1984. Therefore it isn't a democracy, QED. However, I do agree with your little rant and I commend you for it. One thing though, if all everyone did was agree with each other then this would be quite the dull thread, no? It's more entertaining to have people debating.

*Agrees with RedStarWarrior* same with Athens, only 6,000 or so property-owning males were allowed to vote. Plus, it was a completely direct democracy, the 6000 or so citizens voted on everything for themselves. The Roman Republic was more American in that respect, although one would hope that nobody will be appointed perpetual dictator here in the states anytime soon.

Craig

9th November 2006, 08:09 AM

Saddam is my idol, he is basically a fire breathing raging badass.

I can't believe they are doing this. All the things he did for his people, and the U.S goes and invades and fucking sentances him to death. I am deeply apalled by this decision and hope the UN dies in a fire.

Weasel Overlord

9th November 2006, 10:23 AM

[color=silver]Well, to be honest, I didn't actually say it was a 'true' democracy, while America isn't, did I? I said it was, along with Athens, the first democracy.

(And I'll own up to not having read Night Watch... merely watched the amazing film... which, by the way, everyone should watch... o.o But I plan on reading it once my Eng Lit course reading has vanished. ^_^)

And I know that it's "entertaining" to have debates, but not flame wars, which is what I was on about, yah? 'Cos sometimes when people reply to these threads, it always seems like they're just arguing for the sake of it, or because they don't like someone...

Oh, how I do prefer British politics, even if our PM is a cretin who licks Bush's arse constantly...

DarkTemplarZero

9th November 2006, 12:21 PM

Well if we go by commonly accepted dates then Rome was actually the first when they ditched their last king in 509 BC, most people attribute the Athenian democracy to Cleisthenes in 508 BC.

And these aren't flame wars, come on, that's weak. You haven't seen a real flame war.

Magmar

9th November 2006, 10:26 PM

As Ghandi once said, "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind".

This is more like "a skin cell for an entire person".

In my opinion, Saddam should sit there, and every single parent who had a young child killed by Saddam should approach him and be like "You killed my son/daughter/grandson/granddaughter/brother/sister." And he should have to apologize to them.

I also wanna see him swing. I don't care if you agree or disagree. I want to poke him with a stick as he hangs from a tree. I'm VERY Liberal, actually I just don't care about politics, but that man killed so many people. I want him to swing swing swing from the tangles of a rope.

DarkTemplarZero

9th November 2006, 11:14 PM

This isn't about liberal versus conservative, there are many people on both sides who either support or oppose the death penalty (see: Catholic Church), the question is whether or not you believe that every human being, regardless of what they've done, is still a human being, and whether or not you believe that by taking perverse pleasure in brutally killing Saddam you degrade yourself until you are no better than he is. Clearly you believe one thing, I believe just the opposite, but I of course respect your opinion.

Oh and can you explain the whole skin cell thing? I really don't get it.

Roy Karrde

10th November 2006, 08:24 AM

The skin cell thing is refering to your eye for a eye comment. The eye for a eye meaning equal revenge, I believe Rude Boy is saying that if a "Eye for a Eye" were to really happen, and for equal revenge to be carried out, then it would have to be a Skin Cell killed for each person, becuase there are just so many, and Saddam doesn't have that many eyes.

As for the hanging thing, I believe it is more of a belief of do you believe that Saddam has done something so horrible, so disgusting and revolting. That the only punishment left is killing, that by leaving a man that is so disgusting alive, when in and of itself be a crime against humanity. And that by leaving him alive, you run the chance of A: Him escaping through either a Insurgent attack, which does happen with Jails in Iraq, and even here in America. or B: He is able to create or write his thoughts into book form or get them out to the public, ala Hitler when he was in prison.

Either way neither of those are worth the risk, and the Iraqi people decided that Saddam is not worth that risk, and that his victums deserve some measure of peace for the first time in a long time.

Magmar

11th November 2006, 10:12 AM

DarkTemplarZero

12th November 2006, 11:51 PM

Well I'm back from Boston, and so here we go again.

Just what is this point where a person no longer deserves the right to life? Who has the right to say that at this point, this person no longer deserves to be treated as a human being?

Roy Karrde

12th November 2006, 11:56 PM

When a point that some one no longer deserves to live is when they have created a crime so hanis, so horrible, that the only way to make absolutely sure that their reign of terror will be over. Is the ultimate punishment. Those that decide it should be your peers and the evidence itself. As for crimes that deserve it, I say crimes such as Genoside such as what Saddam has done, as well as those like Hitler, and Osama Bin Laden, and crimes to which there is no way to rehabilitate. If there is no way to rehabilitate then they just become a stain on society, in which there is always a chance for them to get out. What do I mean by those that cannot be rehabilitated: Serial Killers, and Multiple Offense Sex Offenders that either Rape or attack Children.

And as for those that no longer deserves to be treated as a human being, is again when those people have created a crime so horrible, that they forfit the right to being treated as a human, and even more, forfitted the right to exist.

Edit: To put it simply, if you wish to act Inhuman, if you wish to do acts that are clearly inhuman. Then you give up the right to be a human. You can't have it both ways in which you can act inhuman and treat others in a inhuman fashion, but at the same time want to be treated as a human.

Asilynne

13th November 2006, 04:17 AM

My dad always says "If you have a mad dog, put it down"
While I dont particulary like the death penalty, I also dont like the idea of Sex offenders and the like getting back out to strike again and ruin lives so I see what you mean Roy.

SoulflameNinetales

13th November 2006, 04:37 AM

I have been thinking very carefully about what has transpired over the time and I come to this conclusion.

Saddam should be hanged, I personally am not fond of hanging. I believe we have a responsability not to fall to lower levels. In my opinion, hanging is a little lower on the scale of civilised "killing" then say lethal injection. Granted, it is sometimes preferable to put the most heinous, most evil people out of comission, but we should not drop closer to his level by doing so in a crude and uncivilized manner. So even thro i'd prefer Saddam to die by lethal injection I'm not going to question the decision that has been made. However...i would want him to see the many faces of those who's lives he destroyed. No, I don't mean a public hanging...I would prefer his last thoughts be able those who suffered, even if he isn't at all sorry for his acts.

Technically neither Rome or the Greeks form of gov't were democracies, but rather they are the forefathers of democracy.

And as for your last post Roy Karrde, I believe not many people could of put it better. Well done.

RedStarWarrior

13th November 2006, 06:16 AM

I hope the hanging is public.

Arnen

13th November 2006, 08:49 AM

I want to see him hang. He's responsible for the deaths of countless people, so it's only fitting that he should die in such a humiliating manner.

Plus he kinda reminds me of a turtle, so it'd be funny to watch.

DarkTemplarZero

13th November 2006, 03:41 PM

Well Athens and Rome were more or less democratic in terms that everyone who was considered a citizen could vote, i.e. male non-slaves, not that different from the United States in the early 19th century.

Hahah you guys remind me of the election in Ohio for the house, Hayes vs. Dodds, Hayes made a great commercial featuring a blown up picture of a random black man and said that "Dan Dodd does not want this man to be executed", because Dodd supported a moratorium on the death penalty in order for a commission to re-evaluate the system. Jon Stewart had some nice jokes on the subject on the October 31 Daily Show.

"I also dont like the idea of Sex offenders and the like getting back out to strike again and ruin lives so I see what you mean Roy."
There's something called life without the possibility of parole. And besides, in terms of sex offenders there are many ways to rehabilitate them, there are medicines to surpress their urges, etc. even without throwing them in jail for the rest of their lives.

Roy Karrde

13th November 2006, 03:47 PM

For one you put them in jail for life and you will have the ACLU and every other organization trying to get a appeal, you know that and I know that. Second there is no way to rehabilitate sex offenders. They are like drug addics, young children, women, it's a feeling of control, and if you keep them away from drugs then they will do fine. The problem is that I know no place in this world and neither do you where there are no women or young children that they can get after.

And Drugs? Really you want to risk the safety of children on DRUGS? That is kind of scary.

It's kind of sad that we have gotten to a place in this world where we protect the rights of the guilty, more than the rights of the victims, or would be victims.

Anyway this topic is supposed to be about Saddam and the swaying he will be doing by the end of January, lets keep it there and move the other stuff to the Politics and History topic.

mr_pikachu

13th November 2006, 05:14 PM

As a member of the "We hate Saddam" club, I'm currently waiting for my invitation to the execution. I'm sure it will arrive in my mailbox any day now.

But for a serious concern... I've heard that Saddam's being tried for more crimes now. Does anyone know whether this will be the last trial, or if more will be coming soon?

I understand that all the families and friends of people he had killed deserve their own, individual closure, and in a perfect world they would all get it through separate trials. But on the other hand, the delay in the execution is also a delay in everyone's closure. If this drags on for too long, it won't be worth getting special closure for a few more people because it will make everyone wait ever longer for the ordeal to be over. So, does anyone have any idea about any pending cases?

Roy Karrde

13th November 2006, 05:20 PM

From what I heard he will be killed in late January. Until then he has the right to a appeal to happen. But he cannot appeal the appeal and so on. You know it is amazing for all those that believe that we set it up, or gave Saddam a false trial. we sure are going out of our way to make sure he gets his rights.

Magmar

13th November 2006, 05:53 PM

he's not an American.
he's not being tried in America.
I'm not worried about him getting his rights. You have no right to bitch unless you are an Iraqi citizen.

More importantly, I am eating delicious fresh string beans. yummy

Blademaster

13th November 2006, 07:04 PM

More importantly, I am eating delicious fresh string beans. yummy

Now, I do believe that that wins the 'Most Random Thing of the Day' Award.

Magmar

25th November 2006, 08:56 AM

Umm all our lovely debate is gone. Tear :(

Roy Karrde

28th December 2006, 08:37 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16384738/
The Butcher of countless people will finally be hanged by those that he has wronged. The execution is supposed to be carried out sunday, which would be saterday night over here. Meaning Sunday morning it will be up on You Tube.

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f191/BT915/Pix/Saddams20Noose.gif

DarkTemplarZero

28th December 2006, 10:47 PM

Master Rudy

28th December 2006, 11:49 PM

*yawn* now if the Iraqis would go ahead and hang Bush for us I'd be a bit happier. And Putin too, that filthy bastard.

Whatever, I'd argue but I'm tired as all hell. All I have to say is that state-sponsored murder is wrong and Iraq shouldn't sink to his level and kill him for the pleasure of it.

Ok now your going too far......however I'm not sinking back down to your level for that Bush comment. I really don't feel like feeding a troll tonight. Anyway I highly doubt Iraq is doing this out of pleasure. Has it ever occured to you that maybe this man needs to pay for his crimes? :idea:

RedStarWarrior

29th December 2006, 08:16 AM

Well Athens and Rome were more or less democratic in terms that everyone who was considered a citizen could vote, i.e. male non-slaves, not that different from the United States in the early 19th century.
Except that the percentage of the population that had the rights to vote was much smaller in Athens and Rome. In addition, I don't consider early American government a democracy, but rather progression towards a democracy.

Anyway, Saddam had a fairer trial than you are being led to believe. Sure, his lawyers were being killed, but steps were continually taken to try to prevent that. Also, Saddam repeatedly made outbursts in court, but was not as quickly held in contempt as he would have been in an American trial. Hell, the US won't even hand him over until it is time for his execution, for fears that he may be tortured and abused (also, that he might escape). Regardless of whether you believe in the death penalty or not, the big question is whether you believe that genocide should go unpunished. The death sentence was the result of only one trial, one crime against humanity. This man has many other charges against him for similar and worse things. Even if he wasn't executed for this massacre, one of his other atrocities will surely see to his demise.

Mewtwo-D2

29th December 2006, 10:46 AM

People, Saddam used to dip living humans in acid baths, have women raped and beaten to death in front of their husbands, had children disemboweled in front of their parents- for Christ's sake, the man built a multi-level rape auditorium for his sociopathic sons! And hanging is going to make us stoop to his level?

The weight of the person being hanged is what kills them. When the platform drops, their weight against the rope breaks their necks, killing them almost instantly. If he were being slowly strangled, you might have an arguement for a painful death, but hanging is not so much. Although if we wanted a truly painless, instanaeous death, we'd go with the guillotine. Personally, I'd want Saddam executed in his own favorite method of execution- slowly strangled while being dunked into an acid bath.

And DTZ, don't quote Ghandi to me. You do know the man fought in two wars and volunteered for a third, don't you? He also said he would pardon any number of murder to bring India's independence, and gave his blessing to a mandate that said 10 Muslims should be killed for every one Hindu.

DarkTemplarZero

29th December 2006, 12:53 PM

Oh boy, here come the murderous unwashed Huns from Virginia and wherever Mewtwo-D2's from. Everybody! Lock up your children and hold on to your head, lest they chop it off and put it on a stick.

Rudy: There's a little something called a prison. Throwing somebody in jail is punishment, killing somebody is satisfying your personal vendetta. And why not hang Bush? He's guilty of quite a few crimes against humanity on his own, namely Article 7, part e (Imprisonment in violation of the fundamental rules of International Law) and i (Enforced disappearances). Also most likely Article 7 part f (Torture). So what makes him so different from Saddam Hussein, other than the fact that he hasn't executed anybody he's imprisoned illegally to the best of our knowledge?

Mewtwo: hahah I still have this old PM from you:
"I'm guessing you didn't read my post before. Insulting other fans is a crime no fan should commit. Some people don't like reading spoilers. There's no pride or shame in reading them, so it's a free choice. If you persist in attacking other fans, then you will be reported. This is your official warning.

Mewtwo-D2"
Hahah so funny. Anyway, your view of Gandhi is rather skewed, let me clarify your gross misconceptions.

Gandhi did organize Indians to join the South African War, but as a volunteer ambulance corp. Gandhi himself was decorated for his actions as a stretcher-bearer at the Battle of Spion Kop. However, I can't find any other wars he served in, so I don't know where you got that from. Perhaps you didn't know that the Second Boer War and South African War are the same thing?

And about the Muslim thing, whaaaaat? Where the hell did you dig that up? I find it hard to believe that a man who would go on a hunger strike to prevent all Muslims from being forcibly deported from India would do that, but that's just me. Can you give me a reliable source? Wikipedia sure as hell disagrees with you.

And finally, RSW, nobody says that Genocide should go unpunished. That's the whole premise of International Law. I have to disagree with you, the question is whether or not you believe in the death penalty.

Roy Karrde

29th December 2006, 01:12 PM

Rudy: There's a little something called a prison. Throwing somebody in jail is punishment, killing somebody is satisfying your personal vendetta. And why not hang Bush? He's guilty of quite a few crimes against humanity on his own, namely Article 7, part e (Imprisonment in violation of the fundamental rules of International Law) and i (Enforced disappearances). Also most likely Article 7 part f (Torture). So what makes him so different from Saddam Hussein, other than the fact that he hasn't executed anybody he's imprisoned illegally to the best of our knowledge?

I wouldn't say Iraq is satisfying a personal vandetta, they are taking care of their past. Just a few weeks ago there was a jail break in Iraq where one of Saddam's half brother's escaped. Iraqi jails are not the safest place, and I think we all, or most of us can agree that Iraq will never really be able to push on to the future unless Saddam is dead.

As for the Bush thing, that is just sickning man. For one you and I have already talked and we have proven that there was no torture in Guitmo. If you are talking about Abu Gharbi, you would have to prove that he had for knowledge of it. Besides holy shit are you trying to quote UN Resolutions? The Same UN that allowed Iraq to violate it's resolution for years? The same UN that is allowing the world to come to a brink of war becuase they are too weak to deal with Iran?

Not only that but do you understand the absurdity of comparing what Bush has done to Saddam? Saddam the man that Raped, Murdered, Poisoned, Beat, Strangled, Tortured, Shot, Killed, Starved, and Mamed his own people becuase it was his way of keeping power. And that does not even account for the international crimes he has done as you so well seem to want to quote.

When your family is taken away, and you are forced to watch your mother and sister get raped, and then you are thrown off the top of a building so that every bone in your body is broken, or you are taken to a mass grave and thrown into it. Becuase of your remark about Bush, then you will have a point.

Until then, that is just crazy man.

Mewtwo-D2

29th December 2006, 03:16 PM

Oh boy, here come the murderous unwashed Huns from Virginia and wherever Mewtwo-D2's from. Everybody! Lock up your children and hold on to your head, lest they chop it off and put it on a stick.
I'm from Virginia too, and everyone else has been far more civil than you. So us saying that a brutal, murderous dictator who's hobbies included raping women and dipping live people into acid should be executed is evil, but you saying Bush should be executed is "Free speech". Double standards, much?

Mewtwo: hahah I still have this old PM from you:
"I'm guessing you didn't read my post before. Insulting other fans is a crime no fan should commit. Some people don't like reading spoilers. There's no pride or shame in reading them, so it's a free choice. If you persist in attacking other fans, then you will be reported. This is your official warning.

Mewtwo-D2"

Hahah so funny.
I fail to see the irony. You were being obnoxious about people's choice to not read spoilers, calling them idiots.

Anyway, your view of Gandhi is rather skewed, let me clarify your gross misconceptions.

Gandhi did organize Indians to join the South African War, but as a volunteer ambulance corp. Gandhi himself was decorated for his actions as a stretcher-bearer at the Battle of Spion Kop. However, I can't find any other wars he served in, so I don't know where you got that from. Perhaps you didn't know that the Second Boer War and South African War are the same thing?

And about the Muslim thing, whaaaaat? Where the hell did you dig that up? I find it hard to believe that a man who would go on a hunger strike to prevent all Muslims from being forcibly deported from India would do that, but that's just me. Can you give me a reliable source? Wikipedia sure as hell disagrees with you.

"when the Nawab of Maler Kotla issued an order to shoot ten Muslims for every Hindu who was killed in the state, Gandhi gave it his blessing." Wikipedia is not reliable. It is biased and often vandalized.
By the way, did you not know that Gandhi suggested that all the Jews of Europe commit mass suicide rather than fight Hitler. Really peaceful guy. If you were willing to learn the truth about history, rather than the cleaned-up, PC version, than we wouldn't even have to have this argument.

Check these books:http://www.amazon.com/Legends-Cherished-Myths-World-History/dp/006017062X/sr=1-2/qid=1167426865/ref=sr_1_2/105-7672711-5592440?ie=UTF8&s=books
http://www.amazon.com/Gandhi-Nobody-Knows-Richard-Grenier/dp/0840758715

Magmar

29th December 2006, 03:56 PM

Hang'em! I can't wait to watch it.

Haha, I love this thread, can you tell? Who's got the popcorn? I'll make some tacos and call everybody over to chill on the couch and watch some ball, and maybe even catch a glimpse of Saddam hanging.

DarkTemplarZero

29th December 2006, 04:11 PM

I'm kidding about the whole execute Bush thing, I'm just trying to make a point about that.

Ok, second of all, I'm sick of people hating on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is certainly more reliable than you. Any claims it makes are backed up by ligitimate sources and don't claim to know anything about vandalism on Wikipedia unless you actually edit Wikipedia articles, because you don't know shit. As a matter of fact, I defy you to find something on Wikipedia that you can completely disprove. Go. Try.

Woop-de-do, two incredibly obscure sources, a half-assed film critic and a guy who doesn't even have a Wikipedia article on him. It's an interesting read but I'll take it with a grain of salt.

Roy:
I admit it is slightly absurd, Bush isn't a rapist or murderer to the best of my knowledge. Still, both have committed crimes against humanity, and that is not debatable, because you and I both know that Bush knows and approves of secret prisons and detention without the right to a trial, and that is a crime against humanity under international law, forget even torture at Guantanamo (even though there are documents out tying torture at Guantanamo to Rumsfeld) or Abu Ghraib.

And deal with Iran? The UN has been doing all it can, but unfortunately the United States keeps screwing everything over by refusing to talk. Even when Iran wanted to talk about peace and stability with Iraq, the US was like "Nope, we don't recognize you, nah nah!". There's a precedent, look at China back during the Nixon era, it looked like another Cold War brewing, but just the simple act of diplomacy created a China that's now part of the global economy and what not. Why not try the same thing with Iran instead of just giving them the cold shoulder, because that is clearly failing miserably.

Magmar

29th December 2006, 04:16 PM

I *do* edit Wikipedia articles, and have edited quite an arsenal of them.

Let me just say that you have to be careful and don't believe something that seems out of place. The odds are you're feeling uneasy about a certain piece of information because someone put it there to be an asshole. I wish they'd make editing members-only...

Roy Karrde

29th December 2006, 05:17 PM

Roy:
I admit it is slightly absurd, Bush isn't a rapist or murderer to the best of my knowledge. Still, both have committed crimes against humanity, and that is not debatable, because you and I both know that Bush knows and approves of secret prisons and detention without the right to a trial, and that is a crime against humanity under international law, forget even torture at Guantanamo (even though there are documents out tying torture at Guantanamo to Rumsfeld) or Abu Ghraib.

And deal with Iran? The UN has been doing all it can, but unfortunately the United States keeps screwing everything over by refusing to talk. Even when Iran wanted to talk about peace and stability with Iraq, the US was like "Nope, we don't recognize you, nah nah!". There's a precedent, look at China back during the Nixon era, it looked like another Cold War brewing, but just the simple act of diplomacy created a China that's now part of the global economy and what not. Why not try the same thing with Iran instead of just giving them the cold shoulder, because that is clearly failing miserably.

First thing I will say is that I have given you articles in the past that shows that no torture took place in Guitmo, YOU even admitted it. Second we have already acknowledged that your crimes against humanity is very very broad, you believe taking out a military target such as a Progpagnda run TV station is a Crime Against Humanity, even if there are no humans in it at the time.

As for Iran, have you just gone crazy man? Iran wanting to talk about Peace and Stabability in Iraq? Is this before or after we found Iranian arms given to Iraqi Insurgents? Is it before or after we found Iranian Military Officers in Iraq? Is it before or after Iran gave their border over to Al Qaeda so that they could smuggle militants in?

As for the UN doing all it can, is this the same UN that could not stop North Korea from making a nuke? Is this the same UN that used the oil for food program to give Saddam arms and money? Is this the same UN that is currently allowing Iran to be on the cusp of making a Nuke? Is this the same UN that made resolutions condeming Iran, but decided to have them watered down becuase Iranian's allies would not like it? Well is it? Becuase I am quite confused, right now the UN is a toothless tiger to deal with the big problems, not becuase of the US, not just becuase of China or Russia. But becuase they would rather sit around and debate instead of taking action.

And that my friends is why the UN is worthless.

Mewtwo-D2

29th December 2006, 06:36 PM

Okay, kiddo, you just try quoting Wikipedia in a real debate, or citing it in a paper. If there is one college professor out there today who will accept a paper citing Wikipedia as a source, I'd be shocked.

I trust it to a certain extent- great place to look up dates, but it is tremendously biased. Recently Ben Burke vandalized and then tried to have the Protest Warrior article removed, despite the fact that Protest Warrior was an active organization, had a blossoming message board, and was in the news with the conviction of Jeremy Hammond- a hacker who was stealing credit cards from right-wing organizations to give money to left-wing organizations. This was completely politically motivated, and Wiki allowed it, until the members of Protest Warrior raised a huge fuss. (For the curious, Protest Warrior is on hiatus now while they re-design)

Also, what torture are you talking about? There was no torture at Guantanamo, and Abu Ghraib... well, it was wrong, but I just spent six months working with sorority sisters, and what they do to each is much worse.
When you hear 'torture', shouldn't your mind spring to raping wives in front of their husbands, shaving off all hair and forcing your captive to stand naked in the freezing rain, covering someone in honey and leaving them out for the bugs? You know, actual torture? Just like this idiotic comparisons of Bush to Hitler. The people who do that don't have a fucking clue what Hitler was like. Torture is just a word now- it no longer means sociopathic, twisted acts of depravity. It means maybe some mean-spirited bullying. Hitler is just a name now, like Dracula. He's no longer the sadistic, psychopathic killer of over 7 million people, he's the bogeyman that you know is bad and you don't want to be compared to. Nazi doesn't mean anything, gulag doesn't mean anything, fascist doesn't mean anything, because reactionary nitwits with no understanding of history throw them around so much.

Roy Karrde

29th December 2006, 09:28 PM

BAGHDAD, Dec 30 (Reuters) - U.S.-backed Iraqi television station Al Hurra said Saddam Hussein had been executed by hanging shortly before 6 a.m. (0300 GMT) on Saturday...

"We are very excited, we are very happy, we are dancing, we are over joyed that this tyrant, that this butcher is dead, he murdered most of my family and other families" <- Quote from one of the many Iraqi Immigrant Families, this one coming from Plano Texas.

1,000s are partying in Dearborn Michigan and in Detroit.

Mewtwo-D2

29th December 2006, 11:04 PM

This is one death I'm glad happened. May God be with all his victims.

Magmar

29th December 2006, 11:43 PM

I wonder if anyone actually mourned his death?

Master Rudy

29th December 2006, 11:50 PM

I wonder if anyone actually mourned his death?

My money is on that Iraqi news reporter who claimed that the US was not in Baghdad while our tanks rolled through the center of town right behind him as being the only one to actually give a fuck. Killing people is always ugly but there are those in this world that do not derserve life. This was one such person. Glad to see it's finally over. A major step towards Iraqi peace was taken today.

DarkTemplarZero

30th December 2006, 11:56 AM

I'm rather grossed out to see the videos on yahoo and what not, I can't stomach to watch them. Partying for somebody's death, what are we, Atilla the Hun? No wonder why the majority of the world doesn't like us, we're filthy barbarians.

Mewtwo-D2: Funny, I would call you a reactionary nitwit <3. You think gulag doesn't mean anything to me? Two of my great-grandparents spent decades in one. You don't think psychological attacks are torture? You don't think that bringing somebody to the edge of death by drowning repeatidly is torture (see waterboarding, something straight out of the Spanish Inquisition) ? Typical idiot, just because you lack a functional brain doesn't mean that attacking somebody's mind is not evil.

Second, I actually did cite it in a paper last year, I didn't have the money to actually buy a translation of Aeschylus' Agamemnon for my Odyssey paper, and so I just cited the Wikipedia article on Agamemnon, MLA format and all. Highest grade out of anybody in the class. Owned. But that was just a high school paper, let's talk about college papers. Over the summer while I was at Harvard Summer School I wrote a short paper on a very cool computer science concept, cited Wikipedia's article on it, my professor had no problems with it. So don't doubt Wikipedia, it's some great shit.

Roy Karrde

30th December 2006, 12:08 PM

I really dont see the problem with the video being on Yahoo and what not. A few years ago Al Qaeda released the be heading video of a innocent man, and that was everywhere. People even played the audio on the radio.

As for the people partying, Dearborn Michigan has a large, large Iraqi Population, many of those escaped the wrath of that brutal dictator. Those were the ones that they were showing partying. The people that lived in Plano, lost a Sister, Mother, Father, and I believe 30 Cousins to Saddam Hussain. They never showed regular white Americans partying in the streets, just as I doubt there were any. The only parties were those of Iraqis who had lived under his wrath and have good reason to party. Just as there were parties happening in Iraq.

Master Rudy

30th December 2006, 03:34 PM

You know what Zero? I'm tired of your attitude. When someone doesn't agree with you I see you fling insults left and right (muderous unwashed Huns ringing a bell?). When you make a comment that draws heat from everyone around you (such as your Bush comment)you quickly backpedal and say you were kidding. Plus your claims are absolutly fucking absurd. If this country was like the old Iraq or the Soviet Union this arguement would have ended (or perhaps never started)long ago because we would have never heard from your sorry ass ever again following some of the many comments you've made about Bush and other high level goverenment officials. So until you disappear off the face of the Earth at the hands of the oppressive American Commies then what you claim is bullshit. In other words STFU.

Also while we at it I'm calling you out right now as a liar. When things aren't going you way you'll lie to make a point. First off is your obssesion with Wiki. Using Wiki on a HS paper? Ok.....I'll admit that's a maybe. I remember how clueless some of the teachers in HS were. On a Harvard paper? No way in hell. Unless the professor skimmed the report or totally missed the Wiki reference while reading it then there is no way that would have flew. I've known people would have used Wiki before in school. At most they've gotten D's due to how unreliable that site can be. Here's the second point:

First thing I will say is that I have given you articles in the past that shows that no torture took place in Guitmo, YOU even admitted it.

I take Roy's word over yours any day of the week just because you backpedal and change your story so damn much. Why would you continue to claim torture in Cuba if you already admited to one person that it didn't happen? I know why. It's because you can't make a point without a lie. Finally my third point is this. Also before I make this point I'll go ahead and say I can't find the posts in question so it's highly likely they were among the posts lost in the board switch. In other words your free to deny this all you want since I admitted I can't find proof ^_~

Anyway unless I was going crazy I remember you saying as a boy that you lived in the good old USSR. You say you lived in fear? You saw people you know get taken away? Well guess what? I call you a liar for that as well. I know your going to think I'm a cold hearted bastard but you know what? I just don't give a fuck right now. I want to expose you for what you are: a person that plays on others emotions and tries to draw sympaty from those around them in order to make their point. And don't think I don't know what I'm talking about. I wasn't a bad kid overall but I had my moments growing up. I know how quickly people tend to forget about what you did wrong or drop their side of a fight if you make them feel sorry for you and that's exactly what you try to do.

Ok history time. As we all know the old Soviet Union started to fall apart in the late 1980's. By December 25th, 1991 what we knew as the USSR was officially disolved and started to become Russia and the other countries that were once the USSR. You say you were born on October 31st, 1988 if I'm not mistaken. For one I highly doubt people were still disappearing left and right if the USSR was working to end communist rule in their country. Second it's very rare for people to remember things from before their were 5 or 4. At most you would have been 3 years old when the USSR fell apart. I have trouble remembering shit from when I was 5 years old.

I'm done......in all honesty I don't think I should have wasted another second on you but enough is enough. I'm tired of your insults to people that don't agree with you. I'm tired of bullshit and lies designed to make your point. You want to debate everything I said? Go ahead......however I'm willing to bet you can't do it without resorting to insults or lies.

Oh and FYI I'm not a Viginian......I'm an American :P

DarkTemplarZero

30th December 2006, 04:53 PM

Hahahah Rudy I'm officially entertained. Apparently idiots like you are good for something. And yeah, I was kidding, I wanted to make the point that they are both guilty of crimes against humanity. But one point, I'm not flinging insults because you disagree with me, I'm flinging insults because Mewtwo-D2's being a bitch and you're just obnoxious because you refuse to believe that anything that disagrees with you is reliable.

Second of all, I agreed with Roy that I knew of no completely conclusive evidence for torture at Guantanamo Bay, other than documents authorizing the use of "alternative interrogation methods", the Military Commissions Act, and the testimonies of people who were actually prisoners there. I dropped the point because there was no point in arguing any further, there were good points and sources for both sides, and so whatever. However, the point is irrelevant, my point was that Bush is guilty of crimes against humanity under international law, which is not a debatable point. The existance of secret prisons (admitted publicly by the President himself) and the fact that he authorized the imprisonment of people without the right to a trial (well documented, public knowledge) is a crime against humanity.

I won't argue Wikipedia with you anymore, but I'll admit my example isn't that valid, because who would bother vandalizing an article about simulated annealing? But whatever, I won't bother anymore. From the points you make, it's obvious that everything that doesn't agree with you is obviously not a reliable source. Hail Rudy!

Next, yes, I was 5 years old when I moved from the former USSR to the states. However, when did I say I lived in fear? I said two of my great-grandparents spent decades in the Gulag, which is quite true. I didn't see them taken away, true, but if you're raised being told first-hand accounts of people disappearing in the middle of the night it does stick with you. Now, I could tell you to STFU, but I prefer to think of myself as above that.

Roy Karrde

30th December 2006, 05:06 PM

Actually DTZ you said and I quote

so I don't doubt that Guantanamo may be overhyped

even in Road to Guantanamo most of the harrassment took place in Camp X-Ray, when they were moved to the new facility it kinda just became like "oh we're imprisoned for no reason"

When we discussed if there was torture at Guantanamo Bay, I gave you several sources from CNN and others in which it was stated that there was no torture happening at Guantanamo Bay. Infact we found out that just the opposite was happening, that the Guards were being tortured by Human Cocktails being thrown at them, with a mixture of Spit, Blood, Urine, and Sperm being thrown on the Guards who could not do anything in return.

As for crimes against International Law, about Secret Prisons, and Imprisonment with out the right of a trial. Has there been any major war in which International Law was followed strickly by both sides? Now if this was a non war time situation I would agree you that, those tactics would be against the law. The difference: this IS a war time situation, those captured are Prisoners of War, and to even have a trial for those captured during a war time situation would require for troops to be pulled from active duity to go to the trial, Commanders being interviewed and having to focus on sending in document after document instead of focus on winning. Having to pull key military resources out for a trial, is just bad tactics no matter how many human rights violations it may cost.

DarkTemplarZero

30th December 2006, 05:45 PM

Alright, alright. I'll give you that one. Even if we don't really know what's going on in Guantanamo. However, the guards thing is ridiculous, there's even less evidence for that than there is for the torture thing.

And as for your point on international law, what's the point of a law if people ditch it at the first sign of trouble? It's like saying that my family is having a feud with your family, and so law does not apply anymore and I can take your cousin and stuff them in my refrigerator with impunity. International Law doesn't make exceptions during war: the Nuremberg Charter signed by the US which defines crimes against humanity and war crimes specifically defines crimes against humanity as inhumane acts committed "before or during the war" "whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated". So no matter how you put it, it is in violation of both US law (since the US doesn't believe in universal jurisdiction, the United States incorporated all relevant international law into national statutes) and International Law.

Finally, the Bush administration specifically doesn't call them Prisoners of War, because that would imply that they had rights under the Geneva Conventions.

Roy Karrde

30th December 2006, 05:52 PM

The guard thing has been backed up by two websites, one being CNN. Give me a few hours and I can get it on Wikipedia too XP.

As for the point of international law, what is the point of it if only one side is playing by the law, and the other side frequently breaks it? Look at the Insurgents in Iraq, the Iranian Forces there, Al Qaeda doing Car Bombs in Iraq, it seems as if you are willing to give them a free pass becuase they didnt sign the law, you seem to want to harp on the Bush Administration so much, yet it isn't them that are cutting off people's heads, it isn't them that are setting car bombs in civilian market places. The offenders of International Law are not in the U.S. they live in the Gettos of Iraq and Iran.

Please, re read the interview at this link near the bottom of the page from a CNN transcript if you truely believe that the Bush Administration is denying these guys rights. http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/lol.02.html Please read it, it is far from the Gulag that Amnesty International wants to protray it as.

Arnen

30th December 2006, 09:04 PM

So just because they're breaking the law means we can do it too? That makes perfect sense.

Oh, and Saddam's being hailed as a martyr by some holy man in the village he was born in, or so I saw on the news this afternoon. Because I'm sure killing countless innocent people and then being brought to justice is grounds for martyrdom.

Master Rudy

31st December 2006, 01:55 AM

Hahahah Rudy I'm officially entertained. Apparently idiots like you are good for something...........I'm not flinging insults because you disagree with me, I'm flinging insults because Mewtwo-D2's being a bitch and you're just obnoxious because you refuse to believe that anything that disagrees with you is reliable.

Good job proving that you can't make a valid point without insulting someone......bravo...... :waycool:

Now where did I outright say that anything that disagrees with me is unreliable? Just because I have my own opinion on things that doesn't mean I totally blow it off. Let's use 24 as an example. For the longest time I felt that the first season of the show took place in 2004 which at the time was the future. Things that supported it were the fact that 2004 was an election year in real life and David Palmer was running for the Democratic nomination therefore placing an unnamed Republican in the White House. Assuming that Bush is the unnamed Republican that places the show in 2004. However there has been plenty of evidence to prove that the show's timeline begins in 2002:

David Palmer is seen wearing a pin which didn't come into use until after 9/11/01.
This year places Operation Nightfall in 2000, when Slobodan Milosevic was still in power.
Findings at CTU places Day 1 in April. Day 1 7:00pm-8:00pm shows Jack's watch with a date of "23" on it. April 23rd, 2002 was a Tuesday.
According to Findings at CTU, Mark DeSalvo began working as a warden in 2002.
In Day 3, Kyle Singer's driver's license is visible. It gives his date of birth as being in 1987. His age is mentioned in another episode as being 19, placing Day 3 in 2006.
The racing game Countdown takes place in December of 2004, between seasons 2 and 3.
In Trojan Horse, the 24 novel, Operation Proteus was just getting started two years before the novel. Operation Proteus took place in 2000, placing Day 1 in at least 2002.

Other things not mentioned in this list are the fact that the report by the House Special Subcommittee's report and investigation into day one was dated August 26th, 2002. In addition the Tuesday mentioned is Super Tuesday and if there is one thing many writers like to do with their fictional PotUS it's make up election dates. West Wing also did it so I'm sure 24 and the West Wing won't be the last. And despite the fact that I feel 2004 fits better there's all the evidence straight from the show's creators so who am I to call them unreliable?

My point now is this: just because something or someone disagrees with me I don't instantly think that their opinion has no merit. You however have a history of refering to things that are known to be unreliable in the first place. Don't make an ass out of yourself by assuming everything Zero. Just because I don't agree with you, Wiki, the Daily Show and the Democratic Party that doesn't instantly mean I disagree with anything and everything that does not share an opinion with me.

Anyway none of this crap is important to the subject at hand. This was a discussion about Saddam. Your welcome to your opinion about if he should have been killed or not but remember this: the risk of Saddam alive far outweighed the possible risk of him dead. And I've a strong feeling that if he was given life instead and somehow managed to escape you'd be screaming bloody murder over how incompetant the prison guards must have been. Why let him rot in jail, potentially escape and start this shit all over again? Anyone that has lost a loved one due to violent acts knows that it's hard to rest until those responsible are also dead. Yes there may be violent acts over his death towards US troops but personally I think this is more of a real moral breaker for supporters of Saddam's regime. If you want to call hanging him barbaric go ahead but keep one thing in mind. Despite what you say he got a fair trial. There are terrorists out there that have captured independent contractors, beat them and then beheaded them in front of the world. The way you speak it's as if your comparing this to that. The true barbarians do shit like that.......if it was barbaric to give a man a fair trial then I suppose we should have discussed his actions at a jovial dinner party instead, told him it's all in the past, gave him a slap on the back and let him go home a free man.

Yes Zero I too possess the ablility of sarcastic remarks :P

DarkTemplarZero

31st December 2006, 12:11 PM

And torture is backed up by countless other websites, including Wikipedia, CNN, etc. So the point is that both theories have their sources and evidence and are both possible, let's leave it at that, k?

And second of all, Irene Kahn, the extremely short Secretary-General of Amnesty International was the one who first made the Gulag quote. Let's take it in context, shall we? "Guantánamo has become the gulag of our times, entrenching the notion that people can be detained without any recourse to the law. If Guantánamo evokes images of Soviet repression, "ghost detainees" – or the incommunicado detention of unregistered detainees - bring back the practice of "disappearances" so popular with Latin American dictators in the past. According to U.S. official sources there could be over 100 ghost detainees held by the U.S"
As you can see, she never even mentions the mistreatment of prisoners, but simply the fact that people are imprisoned without the right to a trial. Bam. Insant Gulag.

"The offenders of International Law are not in the U.S. they live in the Gettos of Iraq and Iran."
So you deny the existance of US secret prisons and the fact that about 10 of the 700+ held at Guantanamo have actually been charged with a crime? Because those are offenses under International Law. And if we don't stick to International Law as one of the countries primarily responsible for it's existance, why should anybody else? What's to stop another Holocaust or another Rwandan Genocide or another Darfur? If the United States, the land of the free and the home of the brave, doesn't follow it's own laws, why does Iran need to comply with International Law?

Rudy, I love to see how you attack my sources when your favorite source is a fictional TV show. CNN, NYTimes, Wikipedia, The Daily Show, Al Jazeera (yes Anti-American, but still an established news source), etc. are all less reliable than fiction. Wow man. That is just remarkably stupid. I've heard of Bible inerrancy, but 24 inerrancy is something new. I really won't bother replying to your post because it is such a load of crap I honestly don't want to waste my time reading it. I know reality has a well-known liberal bias that's worse than the New York Times, but next time try to stick to reality please? I love you man, <3

Oh and a happy early New Year to all!

Roy Karrde

31st December 2006, 12:24 PM

So do you believe that Irene Khan is stupid enough to misspeak in saying that? She knew exactly what she was going to say and knew that everyone would lead with the first part. Guitmo is no where near a Gulag and you of all people should know that. And to say that Guitmo is a Gulag not only insults the United States, but also insults your own ansestors that you say were in a Gulag.

As for the International Laws, you are comparing what would be a Dime Store Robbery with Mass Murder. Wow Charged with out a crime, Wow not allowing people to work out in the morning, wow secret prisons. I wonder what your reaction would be if the US started really breaking International Laws instead of this Dime Store Robbery bull shit. Lets see what happens if US Troops started fire bombing districts that have increased Insurgent Activity, like what they are doing to US Troops with car bombs each day. Lets see what happens if US Troops started shooting anyone they believe is a terrorist or even looks like one, that sure would cut down on US Troop Deaths. Lets turn Iran into the Glass Capital of the world by nuking it over and over just like what they want to do with Isreal. Lets shut down freedom of the press like what Venezula is doing. Lets lock YOU up for speaking out against this country and throw away the key.

Now how scary is the stuff that I am mentioning? Neither You nor I want to see that happening, but those things are truely breaking International Law. So lets throw the Dime Store Robbery stuff out unless all you want to do is put a stick in America's eye no matter what the cost.

Magmar

31st December 2006, 03:55 PM

So, Saddam was lynched, and there is a video. I won't link to it here, but if you really want to see it just IM me or look for it yourself.

Master Rudy

31st December 2006, 10:20 PM

Rudy, I love to see how you attack my sources when your favorite source is a fictional TV show. CNN, NYTimes, Wikipedia, The Daily Show, Al Jazeera (yes Anti-American, but still an established news source), etc. are all less reliable than fiction. Wow man. That is just remarkably stupid. I've heard of Bible inerrancy, but 24 inerrancy is something new. I really won't bother replying to your post because it is such a load of crap I honestly don't want to waste my time reading it.

And how in the blue hell did the fictional anti-terrorism missions that CTU undertakes become a source as to this whole Saddam thing? Where did I say the word of Jack Bauer and Tony Almedia was more reliable than say Jon Stewart or CNN? There was not a single point I used it as a "source" in this debate. I was mearly making a point which you totally 100% missed and that point was I don't disagree with everything that disagrees with me. I felt season 1 took place in 2004. The writers and evidence over the first and third seasons said otherwise. Seeing that they wrote the damn thing that means they can't be unreliable. Let's use Lord of the Rings instead. I could quote things from the film all day long but if I'm trying to have a debate about the actual book with the film as my only source material then I'm fighting a losing battle aren't I? Movie was great but in the end Tolken's words are the boss. The way you put it if I said I prefer the film to the book that would be like me saying Tolken's original story is unreliable. However I'm not saying that. I'm saying Tolken wrote it and while the book obviously doesn't match the movie in some places since it came first the book is the end all be all if your having a debate about LotR and is therefore NOT an unreliable source dispite the fact that things in the book disagree with things in the movie and I prefer the movie. I'll forgive you Zero. After all you yourself said you didn't bother to read my last post. How can I expect you to understand the point I was trying to make if you didn't even read it? No hard feelings.....things like that happen.

As for Roy well said. That reminds me of something I said in an earlier post. Yes war is ugly and yes there are times where your going to do things you don't like. However in war if you don't do them many more people could die in the long run. Who remembers World War II? Yeah those two nukes were terrible but think of the manpower required for an invasion for the Japanese mainland. In the long run it would have at least drawn that war out for another year or two and cost so many more Allied and Japanese lives over that period than the two bombs did. It's not an easy choice but it was one that needed to be made: let the war drag out and kill many more in the long run in a push towards Tokyo or nuke two cites and threaten Tokyo with a third in an attempt it end it now. The Saddam situation is the same thing. Kill him now and let it be over with or put him in prison and risk an armed group loyal to him busting him out of jail resulting in the deaths of Amercians in the process. Then following that how about Saddam goes underground and plans attacks or maybe even a possible take over of Baghdad? Can you imagine the field day reporters would have had if Saddam would have busted out of prison and then several months later planned a successful assassination attempt on the Iraqi president......yeah that wouldn't have been pretty would it?

Vejodi

1st January 2007, 11:01 AM

I believe in the saying, 'two wrongs don't make a right'. But meh, it's another countries laws, so I respect their decision.

Mewtwo-D2

1st January 2007, 11:53 AM

I'm rather grossed out to see the videos on yahoo and what not, I can't stomach to watch them. Partying for somebody's death, what are we, Atilla the Hun? No wonder why the majority of the world doesn't like us, we're filthy barbarians.

What do you think the Middle East is doing right now? Many of them are celebrating. For filthy barbarians, how about the videos of people dancing in the streets and singing for joy after 9/11? Is it more barbaric to celebrate the death of a brutal, murderous dictator, or to celebrate the deaths of 3000 innocent people?
Do you think no one celebrated when Hitler died? Or do you think all the Jews who were furious that Mengele had died of natural causes are filthy barbarians too? And while we're on the subject of people dancing in the streets when murderous dictators died, the Italians, the French, the Germans, the English, the Russians, the Hungarians, the Polish, the Czechs, the Cambodians, the people of Laos, the Phillipines, the Turks, the Greeks, the Somalians, the Sudanese, the South Africans, the Chileans, the Mexicans... shall I continue? are all filthy barbarians too.

Mewtwo-D2: Funny, I would call you a reactionary nitwit <3. You think gulag doesn't mean anything to me? Two of my great-grandparents spent decades in one.
No, I don't think gulag means anything to you. One of my great-great-grandparents was murdered for being Irish. Does this mean I can speak with authority on hate crimes? If Gitmo, where they have three square meals a day, free Korans, non-radical Muslim clerics available at all times, exercise time, plumbing facilities and toilet paper, air conditioning, and much better living conditions than their glorious leader, is a gulag to you, then you have no concept of the word.

You don't think psychological attacks are torture? You don't think that bringing somebody to the edge of death by drowning repeatidly is torture (see waterboarding, something straight out of the Spanish Inquisition) ? Typical idiot, just because you lack a functional brain doesn't mean that attacking somebody's mind is not evil.

How is it that you are incapable of debate? For what they did in Abu Ghraib, no, I don't think it was torture. Depriving someone of sleep for short periods of time before questioning is not torture. Applying electrodes to someone's genitals until they confess is torture. But Saddam did that, so that's okay. The Americans deprive someone of sleep and it's 'ZOMG HITLER NAZI BUSH EVIL KKKONSPIRACY!!!!!11111' If waterboarding is torture, then let's start charging fraternities with crimes against humanity.

Second, I actually did cite it in a paper last year, I didn't have the money to actually buy a translation of Aeschylus' Agamemnon for my Odyssey paper, and so I just cited the Wikipedia article on Agamemnon, MLA format and all.
So, tell me. How was it that you couldn't afford a play that is in the public domain, and is available free on the internet?

Didn't anyone ever tell you that if you lie too much, your tongue will turn black and fall out?

DarkTemplarZero

1st January 2007, 06:24 PM

To Rudy: Honestly, I can't be bothered to read what you say anymore. I can't say I read your previous post and I probably never will, it's just not worth it.

To respond to Roy: so if people are breaking the law in major ways that means the minor felons should get off? Good logic. I'd love to see you try to pull that defense off in court, "I only killed 3 people! There are people who killed 5, 10, hundreds, millions! What about them, huh? If Pinochet got off, why can't I? If I killed 4 people, then I could understand going to jail, but just for 3? Come on! We're talking dime store robberies here!" Just because something's a less heinous crime against humanity than something else doesn't change the fact that it's a crime against humanity.

To D2: Same as I said to Roy, celebrating one death is still Barbaric, and just because people did it in the past doesn't mean you should keep up the traditions. If everybody did that, we'd still be selling our children into slavery as advocated in the Bible, Exodus 21:7. And I don't know where the hell you get your opinions of torture from, maybe next time talk to an actual torture survivor before you make yourself look stupid. Read up on waterboarding, it's not exactly something you'd see at a frat house.

Roy Karrde

1st January 2007, 10:39 PM

And Dark I reply that if you wish to treat each crime equally, you will never get anything done. I guess in your world you would want to focus on the criminal shop lifters that are stealing the Fruit Roll Ups from the store, and not worry about the Rioting and killings happening in the city right?

As for your comment to D2, when did you become the moral equivilent for everything? You don't know what those people have experienced under Saddam's rule. Yet you feel free to judge their actions when some one that has haunted their life for years has been put to justice. How do you get off doing that? These people have done nothing to you, yet you see fit to call their actions barbaric. You know what I think is barbaric? I think some one that sits at home, comfy and safe, with his family safe and secure, and can sit back and judge the actions of others when you do not know one iota of the hell they have gone through in their lives. That my friend is Barbaric.

Magmar

2nd January 2007, 01:33 AM

Sorry, DTZ, but no matter how much you bitch about how Saddam was so cruelly slaughtered *tear*, if you ever walked into Iraq and tried to tell some mother whose children were boiled alive that it was unjust to end Saddam's life, you're lucky if she doesn't kill you.

I know I don't cite my politics etc. when I argue because when I've got something to say, I'll say it--and I will say flat out that Amnesty is the biggest bunch of p***ies I have ever encountered in my life. I'm about as liberal as they come, and I would NEVER let Saddam live in a million, billion years. Nobody in the world wouldn't see justice in the execution of a mass murderer who committed countless crimes against humanity unless they were ON CRACK. Pass me some of that, because I don't think any drugs I've encountered would EVER be able to make me like Saddam or value his life.

He's dead, and he's where he belongs. I don't know if Hell is real or if he's being reincarnated as a leapfrog in high traffic, but he'd better be getting his ass handed to him by the powers that be because I don't think any amount of human torture could possibly add up to a billionth of the pain he has caused that nation.

You can call us ruthless, huns, any name you can think of, but you'll just respond, taking time to perfect your English to make yourself sound smarter than me and use larger words just to try to appear pompous. "Oh ho ho ho, you don't bother me! I am sagacious and you are so ruthless, you cannibal!" Blow me.

Try all you want, you're not bringing Saddam back, and you need to stop bitching about these itty bitty things and start looking at the big picture. Put some of those funds towards fighting AIDS or Cancer or fucking chronic mastoiditis, I've got too much experience with lethal diseases that I'd rather not talk about here, but I can say that I'm a bit more concerned for diseases that affect INNOCENT PEOPLE than I am for the rights of the guilty. There could be some six year old girl out there who's dying of cancer and the people who could find the cure can't afford the materials and such, yet your group is blowing money on distributing anti-punishment-of-the-genocide-leaders propaganda. Don't you have something better to do??

Would you seriously vouch against Hitler's execution as well? "No, don't kill Hitler! Don't let the Jews kill Hitler because he's a living being with rights and feelings!" Ah, bullshit. Go suck an egg. Saddam deserved what he's got.

And by the way, don't just ignore the things Rudy says. He's got a brain, too, you know, and he has rights and *tear tear tear*.

Ugh, I'm so aggravated.

Drago

2nd January 2007, 03:49 AM

Christ, I've really gotta stop reading these topics from the beginning. I feel sleepy now.
Right, so Saddam is dead. Deed is done, opinions differ and it's just a matter of time to see what the ramifications are. If I had been personally wronged by Saddam, I would no doubt be all for his death. Let the world be rid of the man who took away someone I loved and cared about. Stop him from doing this again, and let me have my closure.
Saddam Hussein did not kill anyone I love and care about... but why should that change my opinion? He hurt others, he must be stopped. It's easy for me to sit here and protest the death of a man who did nothing to me, but I would suddenly care if he had? Nope, can't do that. I'm all for Saddam Hussein's life being ended. I personally see life as being a gift. I certainly don't take the premature ending of it lightly, but Saddam did. He, through unfair and horrible means, took away lives. Innocent lives, at that. When someone has taken that gift away from those who did nothing wrong, it is up to others to do the same for the good of the people. If a fire is burning, you put it out.

Above all else, Saddam should've listened to the most important quote in history...
'Treat others as you'd like to be treated' ~ good old mom

Master Rudy

2nd January 2007, 04:22 AM

To Rudy: Honestly, I can't be bothered to read what you say anymore. I can't say I read your previous post and I probably never will, it's just not worth it.

Yep....spoken like a person that knows he's fighting a losing battle. People like you do this all the time. When a point is made and you know you can't fight it you quickly go from using big words and making others look dumb to saying things like "This isn't worth my time". Next time at least admit you've lost a debate if you can't argue back anymore. You might actually get a little more respect from people.

Well said about AI Magmar. Granted I wouldn't mind them if they actually focused their time on people that may actually be innocent that are in jail on death row because while it may be extremely rare shit like that does happen. However instead of researching cases like that they have to waste their time and energy on trying to prove how terrible we treated Saddam. Give me a break.

And for the morbidly curious this is it. Saddam's last minutes on this world:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-799653553047668963&q=Saddam+hanging&hl=en

Mewtwo-D2

2nd January 2007, 10:38 AM

To D2: Same as I said to Roy, celebrating one death is still Barbaric, and just because people did it in the past doesn't mean you should keep up the traditions. If everybody did that, we'd still be selling our children into slavery as advocated in the Bible, Exodus 21:7. And I don't know where the hell you get your opinions of torture from, maybe next time talk to an actual torture survivor before you make yourself look stupid. Read up on waterboarding, it's not exactly something you'd see at a frat house.

For my opinions on torture, I've been studying the Holocaust since I was 8 years old- almost every book I've read on it was written by a survivor. I've studied the behavior of the Japanese during WWII. My father was a Colonel during Desert Storm- in fact, he coordinated Air Force communications- and he told me some things about Saddam that the Propoganda department wouldn't release, fearing that it was so horrible that no one would believe it. Try cracking a history book someday to figure out what real torture is.

I know perfectly well what waterboarding is. I also spent the last six months working with fraternity boys and sorority girls, and they were doing things to each other that I would consider just about on par.

And you still haven't answered my question of how you could not afford a book that's in the public domain.

Roy Karrde

2nd January 2007, 02:18 PM

Just to put some of the things in perspective with the Fraternities, here are some of the things that happen there from things that I have heard.

You are taken out to some place in the middle of the night either outside of the town or outside of the state, stripped naked with out a single dime, and are supposed to get back home

You are taken to a park, stripped, blindfolded, and hit in the back several times before having hot wax poured on you.

You are locked in a car trunk with a few others and told to drink several containers of alcohal

You are stripped naked and have a overweight man rub his private parts all over you

You are beaten to the point of broken bones

They get you drunk, line you up, you bend over and grab the privates of the man infront of you, and walk in a line around the school at night

They heat up a Cattle Brand and brand your skin with heated iron so that it stays with you for life.

The most dangerous one is they make you consume liquids, many times water, to the point that you nearly die. Some people have died during this version of initiation.

These are the ones that have been made public, others involve things like Electricution, More Public Humiliation, and other things. I also want to say that while in High School Football I saw several hazing attempts happening from a Birthday "You are held to the ground while a line men takes off his clothes and sits on your face" to while you are changing several people come up with their pads and swing them at you as hard as they can. So does this mean I was tortured? Where was Amnesty International when I was playing football?!

mr_pikachu

2nd January 2007, 02:56 PM

I considered making a topic in Entertainment to discuss the video of Saddam's hanging, which I haven't yet seen although I plan to watch it soon. But I figured I'd be a flame target for designating it as Entertainment (even though it's a video)... oh well.

Anyway, for those of you who have seen it, what were your thoughts? Was it what you expected? Were some things different than you anticipated? Any other comments?

Heald

2nd January 2007, 07:10 PM

To the idiots:

Joining a fraternity/football team is completely optional and thus so are any initiation ceremonies. Being locked in a detention centre run by foreign nationals with no legal aid and the automatic assumption that you are an evil towel-head terrorist scumbag is not.

Roy Karrde

2nd January 2007, 07:17 PM

Joining a Fraternity is optional agreed, but when I joined up for High School Football I did not forsee nor plan on being hazed. And that is what it was a hazing. I do not say that I was tortured in anyway, I was hazed.

And to a extent all the "Torture" reports and everything else that is coming out sounds just like hazing or even less than hazing. Waterboarding? How about being nearly drowned in Alcohal so that you die of Alcohal poisoning. Panties on the top of your head? I know alot of Football players that would want that instead of having Tittle sitting on their heads.

Leon-IH

2nd January 2007, 07:27 PM

Listen the fuck up people.

How the fuck is Saddam's hanging going to benefit the people of Iraq? How is the obviously bullshit trial system going to do ANYTHING for the puppet governments credibility?

I don't give a fuck what he did, it had been done and nothing could undo it. All killing Saddam in this way did was make a Martyr of him and make a collective of people very very angry (like they wern't angry enough), prison for life would've been a better option.

This hanging did nothing but bad for the people of Iraq (revenge that causes more violence, fucking great benefit there), and as it's supposedly their justice system (bullshit), it should probably do what is in the best interests of the Iraqi people.

Heald

2nd January 2007, 07:30 PM

Having someone put their genitals on your face is sexual assault and you could report them to the police. You don't have to take part in the alcohol ceremonies - if you value a bit of status more than your own personal health and safety, again, that is your choice.

Prisoners in foreign detention centres don't have that luxury. They can't cry to the police or the principal. Of course they could fess up to the enemy, if they value comfort over the feeling of guilt, betrayal, cowardice and the loss of the dignity and self-respect. Comparing being physically and psychologically tormented by foreigners to the shenanigans of some idiot frat-boys really doesn't work.

Roy Karrde

2nd January 2007, 07:36 PM

If you had been reading the topic Leon we already covered this.
A: It gives millions of people comfort that the Butcher of Baghdad has finally been put away.

B: The trial was bull shit becuase he was guilty, but there is still a system to be followed.

C: Let him Rot in Jail? Why not put him in Arkham Asylum over in Gotham City? They have less of a revolving door for jails than Iraq. Hell just a few weeks ago there was a prison break where one of Saddam's half brother's escaped.

Heald: It was Sexual Assault but then again I would have to prove it. The alcohol ceremonies happen in fraternities, and even if you do want to back out in the last minute, you are locked in the trunk of a car! With the only way to get out is to drink yourself to death. As for being in a Foriegn Detention Center. The only place that these Hazing events have happened are in Abu. There is mountains upon heaping mountains of evidence that nothing has happened at Guitmo. Even people that have been there claim that nothing has happened.

So the only place things have happened was in Abu Garabi, which was a prison, not a Military Detention Facility, but a Prison. And you know what I bet? I bet Hazing Techniques like the ones I mentioned above happen in US Prisons too. Such as "Don't drop the soap?" possibly? Where are all the people screaming about torture in US prisons?

DarkTemplarZero

2nd January 2007, 09:17 PM

First of all, great point by Leon-IH. Awesome bro.

Rudy: I did have respect for what you said, until you started rambling on about a random fictional TV show, and I have better things to do than debate with you about some random show which I have never watched.

Magmar: Spoken like a truly small-minded person. I'm sorry about your experiences, but fortunately a great deal of money is being poured into medical research, and many people see biology making as much progress in this century as physics made in the last. Sorry, but that has absolutely nothing to do with my "group", whatever that means. I won't argue morals with you, we both know that's pointless, but let me ask you a question. What has the execution of Saddam done? International outcry, martyrdom, demonstrations in Iraq, the new Secretary-General of the UN has proven to be both remarkably uninformed and backward in his beliefs on the death penalty, nothing in any way positive, awoken lots of ill will in Iraq, and further alienated Europe. Before you answer, first take your head out of your ass and take a look at the rest of the world.

Roy: Yes, I am the sole judge of truth and decency. Morality is what I say is right, and immorality is what I say is wrong, you've gotta understand this ;)
But honestly, we're not talking about people robbing dime stores here, we're talking about crimes against humanity. If we'll become so cold that we say "oh, this is just a minor crime against humanity, there's others...", what's next? Pretty soon genocide's no longer a crime.

And what's so bad about getting a little Captain in ya? Honestly, I can't believe you're comparing Gitmo and Abu Ghraib to frat house parties. I can't say that I've ever been to one, there's nothing wrong with drinking a bit, and newsflash, you don't have to join a frat. Somehow I doubt I would have a problem if the US government were sending it's citizens to Syria to drink some Smirnoff.

Leon-IH

2nd January 2007, 09:26 PM

A: It gives millions of people comfort that the Butcher of Baghdad has finally been put away.

Cold comfort when more of those peoples families are dead because his death contributes to more civil war in Iraq.

B: The trial was bull shit becuase he was guilty, but there is still a system to be followed.

Had a look at the type of court they're running over there? I'm not disputing his guilt, I'm just pointing out that it's a kangaroo court.

C: Let him Rot in Jail? Why not put him in Arkham Asylum over in Gotham City? They have less of a revolving door for jails than Iraq. Hell just a few weeks ago there was a prison break where one of Saddam's half brother's escaped.

Put him in a jail that doesn't suck, problem solved.

Roy Karrde

2nd January 2007, 09:29 PM

Crimes against humanity, you have to be kidding me, you make it sound as if America is going over there, bombing small towns. Using Biological Weapons against small villages, and Raping the women. You know, basic Saddam stuff. These hazing tactics are using in Middle and High School Football, they are used in Jails by inmates and wardens, and even worse stuff is used in Frat Houses. Why not go against those people? People in Jails do not want to be there but they have had crimes against humanity used on them. What about those at Frat Houses? They do not know the Initiation technique till it happens? And those are kids, 18, 19 year olds are having this happened to them. Yet you seem not to care. As for your question, we already have the enemy practicing Genocide, but you would rather turn a blind eye to that, in favor of looking at Hazing? One side is killing innocent people, the other is embaracing guilty people. Which is worse?

Edit: Cold Comfort? You realize that the attacks are taking place in Baghdad and one or two extra cities. Everywhere else in Iraq, especially the areas where Saddam gassed people, they are living in peace now that he is gone.

Second his trial for the Kurds is still on going, betcha didn't know that did ya?

Third find me a jail in Iraq that doesn't suck? What are we going to do take him out of the country? That makes the Iraqi Government look like a farce. Keep him in heavy protection in Iraq? Till when? Till the troops leave? How long will that jail not suck under Iraqi Protection?

Master Rudy

2nd January 2007, 10:36 PM

Rudy: I did have respect for what you said, until you started rambling on about a random fictional TV show, and I have better things to do than debate with you about some random show which I have never watched.

To DTZ:
Once again........I am NOT rambling or debating with you about a random TV show. Once again the whole fucking point is not 24 or LotR. The whole point was the fact that I don't instantly disagree with everything that does not share a point with me. I disagree with you because your trying to defend a twisted point of view by using Wiki, the Daily Show and fucking Al Jazeera. Hell I'm willing to bet you just saw orange text with my name on the last post and took about 5 seconds to post that reply to me considering you aren't even bothering to read them now. A middle schooler has the basic knowledge needed to follow those two posts I made provided they actually read them. Perhaps you'd benefit from following the advice you gave Magmar. Before you answer again take your head out of your ass and take a look at the rest of the world instead of trying to argue your point when you don't even know what the hell the debate is about. Oh and answer M2D2's question. It's just plain rude to leave someone hanging like that. ;)

To Leon:
Need easy answers to those questions? No problem.........refer to posts #1-109 in this topic (minus DTZ's rambling)for answers as to why Saddam is six feet under as opposed to sitting in a 12X12 room with three square meals a day.

To everyone refering to prison torture:
For one there are people who were in Cuba saying that not a damn thing happened. As for the Abu Ghraib incidents yes those guards were out of line (not to mention that one woman looked like a dog). However that still ain't even close to what frats do and it's still lightyears away from Saddam and Chemical Ali. Does it excuse it? Hell no......however I'd take being lead around on a leash any day of the week over being burned alive with a cattle branding iron.

And on one final note I'll say something my dad said. As sick as they were at least Saddam's sons had the balls to go down fighting for their twisted beliefs. Dear old dad pussied out the moment that US troops poked their heads into the hole he had been hiding in. Men like Saddam are cowards. They know how to hurt people and instill fear but the moment they are at risk for even a fraction of that pain or fear they show their true colors. May he burn until the end of time for all the pain and suffering he caused the innocent people of this world.

Razola

3rd January 2007, 02:26 AM

Let me get this straight:

Saddam dies and his followers get pissed and serious vaginal sand.

He gets prison for life and they just chill out somewhere.

The fuck? They're going to do something bad regardless of whether or not Saddam lived. That's such an idiot statement and I'm tired of hearing it.

Eventually, something is going to piss these people off. We'll, sooner or later, do something to agitate them. You think banning gay marriage would appease radical Christians? No, they'd start bitching about pre-marital relations on TV.

Leon-IH

3rd January 2007, 03:57 AM

The fuck? They're going to do something bad regardless of whether or not Saddam lived. That's such an idiot statement and I'm tired of hearing it.

You think it's just his original die hard followers who are pissed off now?

Everyone in the entire fucking country who gained even the smallest iota under his rule compared to now is pissed off, whatsmore, they got a hero, it's amazing what a martyr can do for your cause.

The war in Iraq is better propaganda for the terrorist and radical muslims bullshit campaign than than any bullshit Bin Laden and his people could dream up, and giving them more heroes like Saddam just makes it worse, thank you and shut the fuck up.

Master Rudy

3rd January 2007, 05:34 AM

Well Raz is right. It's not like they were going to go quietly into the night and let things be if Saddam were alive. A martyr in their eyes? Perhaps.....however keep in mind some people followed Saddam simply because going against him was certain death. Back when this whole thing began many of his troops surrendered peacefully simply because the treatment they were getting as American captives was better than the treatment they were getting in the Iraqi National Guard. As for those that actually shared in his sick views they may portray him as a martyr but in reality they are now leaderless. I'm not saying this will happen with all of them but losing Saddam may have crushed the will to fight in some of these guys. As with any leader when one falls another rises up to take their place but Saddam had years and years of unchallenged rule to build his power. I don't think anyone that has the potential to rise up will last very long. As of now it's just a guessing game and no one can say for sure but there's my two cents ^_~

Roy Karrde

3rd January 2007, 09:55 AM

RedStarWarrior

3rd January 2007, 10:23 AM

What did I say about insults and flames, you little bitches?

This thread is about Saddam and his death. Please stay focused on that and keep your conversation civilized. This is your last warning.

PS - Fraternities and Frats are two different things. Do not confuse the concepts or you will piss me off.

Razola

3rd January 2007, 01:37 PM

You think it's just his original die hard followers who are pissed off now?

Everyone in the entire fucking country who gained even the smallest iota under his rule compared to now is pissed off, whatsmore, they got a hero, it's amazing what a martyr can do for your cause.

The war in Iraq is better propaganda for the terrorist and radical muslims bullshit campaign than than any bullshit Bin Laden and his people could dream up, and giving them more heroes like Saddam just makes it worse, thank you and shut the fuck up.Yes, let's imprison their hero. That won't give them some righteous cause to take down the great evil that is America. I mean, the dead stay dead. You can free a prisoner. No, I don't think they'd pull it off, but it gives them motivation no matter what you do.

You have to remember that doing ANYTHING will give them a cause unless we do jack shit. You take out a terrorist cell and they all become heroes and more reason we need to die. You find a way to cut off major funding to terroism and we're boned. You capture a country's leader and the insurgents will be pissed no matter what happens. You think they're just going to do jack shit if Saddam was simply in a prison. That's idiotic.

Magmar

3rd January 2007, 02:05 PM

I won't argue morals with you, we both know that's pointless, but let me ask you a question. What has the execution of Saddam done? International outcry, martyrdom, demonstrations in Iraq, the new Secretary-General of the UN has proven to be both remarkably uninformed and backward in his beliefs on the death penalty, nothing in any way positive, awoken lots of ill will in Iraq, and further alienated Europe. Before you answer, first take your head out of your ass and take a look at the rest of the world.

Haha, I looooove how you answered your own question from yet another one-sided perspective. Ooh yes, I can be a bitch and an asshole when it comes to debates because I argue my points, 'cuz they're right and you can take them or leave them. At least in Magmarland, my points are right.

What is backward about the death penalty? I say lynch 'em.:hellyeah:

Nobody cares what Saddam's supporters believe. From the neutral perspective outside of Iraq, Saddam killed thousands upon thousands of innocent people, children, women, men, the elderly, anyone who stood in his way. I didn't realize exterminating your own people was an act of heroism.

He deserves what he got. Quit trying to immortalize Saddam as a hero and remember him for the tyrant he was.

Boo-the fuck-hoo that he was lynched. I quadruple-triple-double-dog-dare you to walk into Iraq and publicly mourn Saddam. You'll be swinging right next to him before you even know it!

Saddam is nobody's hero. If he's your hero, then you're a sick freak and I feel bad for your parents. In fact, I'll send them flowers and hug them, because Lord knows they'll need it with the knowledge that there are people like you who think genocide is not a crime deserving the death penalty.

What would Saddam do in prison, anyway? Write a book? :rolleyes: Try to "become good"? He CHOSE to do what he did, and he's paying for it in hell right now. If hell exists, anyway.

And finally, to answer your question. The execution of Saddam has given CLOSURE to the families, the mothers and fathers, the children, who lost those dear to them by the hands of that tyrant. They can sleep a little easier knowing Saddam won't be after them in the morning. The face and name of Saddam has wrought terror into far too many innocents.

How would you feel if you watched everyone in your family tormented and killed for his own cause, were tortured yourself and somehow escaped, and knew that Saddam was still out there doing the same to other innocent families? I bet you'd feel better now that Saddam's dead.

Then again, you'd have to ask an Iraqi citizen how they feel about Saddam. Our opinions are all merely objective and none of us are truly right.

I'm... pretty open minded, too. When it comes to terrorists, however, and people who hurt children, I FLIP out. I'd kill Saddam myself if I had the opportunity. He could be sitting there in the Easter Bunny outfit and beg me not to hurt him and I'd still kick him square in the jaw. I don't have sympathy for him, and why should I? Because he's a human?! That is not human.

There's a box of Kleenex right here if you need any, if Saddam's death is bringing you to tears. Woe is you.

Oh and Bush didn't kill Saddam... the Iraqis judged him! They hate him too.

TKnHappyNess

4th January 2007, 10:20 PM

I don't get why the Iraqi government arrested those guys for the Saddam cameraphone video. It's crappy quality, and the guy using it is an obvious amateur. Besides, we got screwed out of the actual execution by the media, so this is the next best thing.

mr_pikachu

5th January 2007, 01:53 AM

I guess it was because the execution was supposed to be something for Iraq and only for Iraq. By posting it for the world to see, the cameraphone guys took away the private nature of the event.

Not that I can blame them; I'm glad that it's available, especially for Iraqis who fled Saddam's tyranny but still wanted to see his demise. But I do see why it must have been irritating for the people of Iraq, as it breaks the execution's "sanctity," if you can call it that.

DarkTemplarZero

7th January 2007, 12:04 PM

Errr Magmar I hope you know there have been quite a few public mournings for Saddam.

"From the neutral perspective outside of Iraq, Saddam killed thousands upon thousands of innocent people, children, women, men, the elderly, anyone who stood in his way."
True, and things have changed how? Thousands upon thousands of innocents are still dying in Iraq, you can even say that they've been liberated to smithereens. And while Saddam is no hero, don't forget that he was supported by the United States because he wasn't a fanatical Muslim before the Gulf War. Closure? Reawakening old pains is closure? Psh. Besides, I think the people in Iraq have a lot more to worry about than closure when the country's in a civil war. And second of all, stop portraying me as a Saddam supporter, you clearly don't understand a word I'm saying. I believe Saddam was a sick bastard and I hate him almost as much as I hate Putin, which is quite a bit. Still, killing a person is wrong regardless of the scenario, and enjoying somebody's death is just sick, which is why I pity your parents for giving birth to such a demonic little bastard.

mr_pikachu

7th January 2007, 01:16 PM

And while Saddam is no hero, don't forget that he was supported by the United States because he wasn't a fanatical Muslim before the Gulf War.

I shall conveniently ignore the rest of your post so that I may easily make this point: Saddam wasn't supported by the U.S. during the Gulf War because he was a different person then. He was supported by the U.S. during the Gulf War because we were trying to pick the lesser of two evils; neither choice was anywhere near what you would call "good," but Saddam was deemed a little more likely to join forces with us.

Now I will run away as quickly as I can in order to avoid the inevitable flames to come. Adios!

Roy Karrde

7th January 2007, 01:20 PM

You may see no change in Iraq in it's liberation DTZ, but you are thinking in the short term. Before the US came in Iraq had no future except for death and war. Once Saddam died his brothers would take over, both just as or more ruthless than their father. And what was left under Saddam's rule? He already expressed interest in rebuilding his Bio program once the UN turned a blind eye. He was already trying to get Yellow Cake Uranium to make Nukes. He was already supporting Al Qaeda, and Palestinian terrorism. Under Saddam Iraq had no future at all except for them being lab rats for Saddam's next weapon's program.

While there is Secterian violance happening now, it wont remain that way forever. Once we stop Iran's financing of the extreamists, and stop Al Qaeda, the violance will pretty much be over with. What is left can be controlled by Iraq's own Military and Police Force and wont be anything stronger than say normal Gang violance. Iraq has a future now, something more than death and destruction, something more than being lab rats for Saddam. THAT is what has changed.

Also you say there were Public Mournings for Saddam. There were Public Mournings for Hitler too, does that negate what all he did? Also stop the flameing, everyone. Or else really this topic will be closed and people will get Infractions.

Mewtwo-D2

7th January 2007, 03:30 PM

Still, killing a person is wrong regardless of the scenario, and enjoying somebody's death is just sick, which is why I pity your parents for giving birth to such a demonic little bastard.

So, let's say a hulking man armed with a knife is coming at me in a dark alley, his pants unzipped. If I have a gun, and I kill this person who is obviously intending to rape me, I'm wrong?

Let's say I find someone who raped my sister, or killed someone who was in the act of raping my sister. How about someone who had just shot my father? Would I be demonic for protecting myself and my loved ones, and for being glad I had removed a predator from this world?

Is it morally superior to be a victim? And you still haven't answered my question about Agamemnon.

Master Rudy

8th January 2007, 12:43 AM

So, let's say a hulking man armed with a knife is coming at me in a dark alley, his pants unzipped. If I have a gun, and I kill this person who is obviously intending to rape me, I'm wrong?

Let's say I find someone who raped my sister, or killed someone who was in the act of raping my sister. How about someone who had just shot my father? Would I be demonic for protecting myself and my loved ones, and for being glad I had removed a predator from this world?

Is it morally superior to be a victim? And you still haven't answered my question about Agamemnon.

I think it's safe to say you aren't getting an answer M2. It's what Zero does.....when he can't argue something he just won't say anything.

Granted Iraq is still a hotspot now as far as attacks and terrorist activity goes but in due time that country is going to be so much better off with no Saddam. Who knows? Might even become a tourist destination one day once the country itself is in better shape (not to mention the Middle East as a whole)

DarkTemplarZero

8th January 2007, 09:24 PM

Right, flaming is bad, let's all be happy with some Russian Reversals!

In America, you burn CD's, in Soviet Russia, CD burns YOU!!

In America, DarkTemplarZero owns you. In Soviet Russia, DarkTemplarZero still owns YOU!!

In Soviet Russia, what Rudy says makes sense to YOU!!

Sorry, I couldn't resist hahah. Sorry Rudy, you know I didn't mean it. I love you man. Give me a hug. You and I should be like this: http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y126/captain_mail/root/october/tiger_hug.jpg
not like this: http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/8/85/Alexander.jpg Anyways.

Rudy: Hahah I love your point about tourism in Iraq. Iraqi Kurdistan is trying to increase it's tourism revenue by advertising on TV, saying that they're "The other Iraq" and that fewer than 200 coalition troops are station there. It's hysterical. And in due time I doubt Iraq will settle down into a nice orderly nation, just look at what happened the last time a superpower tried to take over a middle-eastern country, that superpower no longer exists, and Afghanistan was far worse off afterward.

Mewtwo-D2: To answer all your questions, yes. Yes you are wrong to kill someone, yes you are wrong to take pleasure from the malice in your heart as you kill someone, and yes it is morally superior to be a victim. Something tells me that you're a Christian, think about your home boy Jesus Christ and then answer those questions for yourself.

Roy: "Once" we stop Al Qaeda and "once" we get Iran to cooperate. You're assuming quite a bit there. It's like Andrew Wiles' first failed proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, you assume too much. And assuming that, you're still left with a brutally divided Iraq, lots of people are pissed off, even without Iranian support you think they'll just give up? Sure. Violence is exponential, the more violence there is the more it escalates, people will keep blowing things up and maiming each other in the streets with whatever they have.

Roy Karrde

8th January 2007, 09:39 PM

* Squezes into the room with the over sized egos *

Now that, I am actually in the room I want to remind you DTZ that the last time a Superpower tried to take over a middle eastern country as you so put it, it was the United States and other Forces entering and taking over Afghanistan. You may have gotten the country right, but I doubt you were aiming for that war. And that's okay we all make mistakes. I should also remind you that Afghanistan is doing relatively well now, the Taliban is a non issue now, Women and Girls are enjoying rights now they never had ( Go watch the movie Osama for reference ). And the country is actually starting to put itself together.

Now for your statement to M2D2, it is not always wrong to kill some one if it is in self defense, I doubt even Jesus who allowed himself to get killed for a cause, would want his followers to stand there and allow themselves to be killed for nothing. And while yes you are wrong to take pleasure in the sight of seeing some one killed, I have a feeling that you yourself watch TV or Movies. Do you morn when the bad guy dies in those movies? Do you morn the deaths the hero causes? Or in some way do you cheer when the Hero beats the Villain? We as a race enjoy seeing the bad guys get justice and die, either in the pretend world of movies, or in the real world.

Now for what you said to me, right now we cannot get Iran to cooperate with the UN, but for Al Qaeda I have a feeling the US Forces are more than up to the challenge of defeating Al Qaeda. If you were to ask the public if we should stay in Iraq for 20 more years, if it would defeat Al Qaeda, you would find people are overwhelmingly in favor of it. Also with those two forces gone you will find that the maimings and blowing things up will dramatically decrese. We have had 9 deaths in New Orleans since the beginning of the year, and countless deaths to gang violance, yet we still find a way to get along. Remove the two main backers and or contributors to the Insurgency, and you remove a good amount of the Insurgency. As for the people getting along, 70% of that country seems to be getting along just fine. All the main action is happening in the two or three big cities. You should take the rest of the country as a example of that these people can get along, you just have to remove the two big influences to the violance.

Mewtwo-D2

9th January 2007, 12:46 PM

DTZ, if you know nothing about my religion, keep your mouth shut. Jesus never promoted victimhood. Laying down your life for a cause is way different then being a victim simply for victimhood. The disciples carried swords at Jesus's own insistence. He never advocated just rolling over and taking abuse- turning the other cheek does not mean sacrificing your life needlessly.

If some bastard tries to rape me, he is getting killed. I don't care if I have to shoot him, stab him, strangle him, or stomp on his head until it caves in. I am not going to be a victim of sexual abuse ever again. Do you think the scum will learn something if I penitentially allow myself to be violated? Why should I have to live with having my body befouled? Why should I have to die to prove a point? It is not morally superior to be a victim, and I think you're completely demented to suggest that it is. Let's say my rapist murders me. There goes your 'every life is sacred'. By saying I should let myself be victimized, you are saying that the life of my rapist is more sacred then mine.

Heald

9th January 2007, 03:34 PM

The disciples carried swords at Jesus's own insistence.

These were his instructions: "Take nothing for the journey except a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in your belts. Wear sandals but not an extra tunic. Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you leave that town. And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them."

"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.

If you can back up your claim, please do.

On a note about Saddam and his so-called human rights being breached - many people believe - erroneously - that every human being is entitled to human rights. They are not. Rights must be earned. The only exception are those who are unable to earn their rights or have had not enough time to earn their rights, such as the severely disabled and children. Good, hardworking people deserve rights. Evil, malicious people who perform acts of evil against other human beings have invalidated their human rights.

In reference to Saddam, he was clearly guilty and everyone just wasted a lot of time and money in a pointless trial that, whether it was fair or not, gave the result everyone was expecting. Whoever the troops were who captured him in the first place should have treated him like every other dangerous enemy and shot him in his little hole. To sympathise with him is to give him what he wants. We're lucky to live in a society where we can insult his executors and call foul when we know nothing of the pain they went through and are still going through as a result of the fallout of Saddam's regime, the war and his execution. He's dead - end of discussion. Now lets concentrate on getting out of this complete mess of a war and get back to spending money on useful matters instead of wasting lives and money in this fiasco.

TKnHappyNess

9th January 2007, 04:44 PM

If some bastard tries to rape me, he is getting killed. I don't care if I have to shoot him, stab him, strangle him, or stomp on his head until it caves in. I am not going to be a victim of sexual abuse ever again. Do you think the scum will learn something if I penitentially allow myself to be violated? Why should I have to live with having my body befouled? Why should I have to die to prove a point? It is not morally superior to be a victim, and I think you're completely demented to suggest that it is. Let's say my rapist murders me. There goes your 'every life is sacred'. By saying I should let myself be victimized, you are saying that the life of my rapist is more sacred then mine.

What if he's got a weapon? He could kill you when he's done so you won't call the cops. If any criminal tells you to do something or they'll kill you, don't bother doing it, because even if you do what they want, there's no guarantee they'll let you live because you can testify against them should they get caught. They don't want to leave any victim or witnesses alive.

Mewtwo-D2

9th January 2007, 05:56 PM

For Heald: Luke 22:35-38
35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
38 And they said, Lord, behold, here [are] two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

Swords for self-defense. Meaningless sacrifice of self is not at all advocated by Christianity.

And TKnHappyNess, that's the point. I'm saying I have a right to protect my body and my life. DTZ is saying that I do not have that right. He is saying that it is better for me to allow myself to be raped and murdered than to fight back and potentially kill my attacker. He is saying that the life, comfort, and well-being of a rapist is more important than my own.

Heald

9th January 2007, 06:13 PM

For Heald: Luke 22:35-38
35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
38 And they said, Lord, behold, here [are] two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

Swords for self-defense. Meaningless sacrifice of self is not at all advocated by Christianity.It is generally accepted that Luke was written decades after the events it tells, and the fact that the passage you have quoted appears nowhere else in any of the other Gospels, it is unlikely Jesus actually said this, and it is probably more likely Luke put it in to appeal to his mainly Greek and non-Jewish audience, whose societies had strong militaristic bases.

That said, no, meaningless sacrifice is not at all advocated by Christianity.

DarkTemplarZero

9th January 2007, 09:15 PM

"If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do." - Exodus 21:7

"So God said to Noah, 'I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.'" - Genesis 6:13

God has a great and noble history of being self-contradictory, hypocritical, etc. so therefore, if you choose to believe in Christian theology you have to pick and choose what you interpret as the true word of God, otherwise you'd shoot yourself in the face trying to be both violent and peaceful, loving your family and selling your daughter into prostitution, etc. However, when choosing between Luke's miltarism and Matthew's cheesey idealism I think I'll take the latter. I much prefer sappy idealism myself. And besides, Mewtwo, I think you're missing the big picture, didn't Jesus voluntarily sacrifice himself to a horrific death? I think that qualifies as rolling over and taking abuse.

And Mewtwo, stop skewing what I have to say. I'm saying you don't have the right to kill someone in anger by pouding their head in like some PMS-y Atilla the Hun bitch. Honestly, I've never met anybody more murderous than you are, where you people get so much murderous hatred I have no idea. Life is good, stop fantasizing about killing each other.

Roy Karrde

9th January 2007, 09:24 PM

The first one I believe was a law at the time from the state, not God's word.

The second one comes from the Old Testiment in which God was a vengeful one, that is why most Christian Churchs now days focus on the New Testiment and not the Old one. As for what you are saying I really believe you are the one that isn't getting it. For one Jesus rolled over and took it for the greater good, becuase he knew his death would save the souls of all, and that he would go on to Heaven.

Could you say the same for a Rape Victum? How many souls does a woman getting raped save? Should a woman who is about to get violated, and has a gun in her purse, just say "Oh hell, I shouldn't bother shooting him, it would be bad, rather I will let him forcibly violate me and possibly kill me?" I want your answer on this.

How about if I were to enter your house? Tie up your family and prepare to shoot them one by one while you are hiding in the next room. Would you not help the helpless? Would you sit in your room and listen to the agonizing cries of your family members as they are slaughtered? Or would you look for a weapon to go and beat my scull in to save your family members?

Let me help you on this one, one answer, the correct one which would destroy your argument and make you a murderous hatred human being is the right one, and it also is the reasonable one. The wrong one which would support your argument, and would suggest that you would sacrafice anyone and anything so that in your heart you can believe you are right, and lets call it the "Saddam Hussain Answer". Would suggest that you should rethink what is valuable in life.

Mewtwo-D2

9th January 2007, 11:05 PM

And Mewtwo, stop skewing what I have to say. I'm saying you don't have the right to kill someone in anger by pouding their head in like some PMS-y Atilla the Hun bitch. Honestly, I've never met anybody more murderous than you are, where you people get so much murderous hatred I have no idea. Life is good, stop fantasizing about killing each other.

I have been a victim of sexual abuse, thank you very much. Unless you went for over a year receiving rape threats on a daily basis, then you have no right to tell me that I can't be angry about it. I would like to hurt the people that hurt me. I know a very wonderful woman, who's just like a sister to me, who was molested at ages 3, 5, 10, and raped at 13. I would like to kill the people who hurt her. I would very much like to see the people who hurt her suffer and die- they deserve it.

In fact, I know several women who have been molested or raped. If someone EVER threatens a woman with sexual violence in my presence, I don't care if they haul me off to prison- I am killing the son of a bitch that does it.

And you know what? I let myself be victimized. When my classmates were telling me that they were going to hold me down on the bus and rape me, when they shouted that if they found me alone in the hallway, they were going to gang-bang me, when they'd slip me notes in class ordering me to get down on my knees and blow them beneath the desk, I just sat there and cried. I never reported any of them. I became suicidally depressed and severely bulimic. I slept 16-20 hours a day. And you know what I realized? I could continue being a victim and wallowing in my fear and self-pity, or I could stop being a victim and simply become a survivor.

I don't care if your demented, twisted, and sick views make you think I'm 'a PMS-y Atilla the Hun bitch'. I refuse to be a victim, and I refuse to allow others to be victimized if I can help it.

DarkTemplarZero

9th January 2007, 11:27 PM

What I think is most important in life, other than perhaps good food of course :), is never compromising your principles. As a fellow Star Trek fan Roy, you should be well versed in never compromising your principles, despite the fact that you're not much of a fan of Voyager. And as for the law argument, isn't the Bible God's word? So therefore God believes in selling your daughters into prostitution? Well, like I said before, religion's all about the interpretation, hence why no Christian or Muslim sect can agree with any other one.

And M2, I see your point. You've had traumatic experiences and you want revenge. Quite human. To err is human, to forgive, divine. While I'm not saying that you should forgive sexual assault, I'm saying that you should stop fantasizing about killing people, really, life is too short to waste with dreams like that. Now I'm sorry if you've become so much like that which you despise the most that you would take pleasure in taking a life. "All who draw the sword will die by the sword", violence is exponential, yet more proof.

Roy Karrde

9th January 2007, 11:32 PM

To help clarify things, yes the Bible is God's world but that does not mean that it cannot show what life was like back then, and or show events that show how bad society was in contrast to God and Jesus' teachings. Showing something and saying God approved of it are two different things. As for the principles thing, I reply with the argument that principles can be bent and broken in even the most extreme circumstances. If not than I pity the person who lays their life or protection in your hands.

Mewtwo-D2

9th January 2007, 11:36 PM

And M2, I see your point. You've had traumatic experiences and you want revenge. Quite human. To err is human, to forgive, divine. While I'm not saying that you should forgive sexual assault, I'm saying that you should stop fantasizing about killing people, really, life is too short to waste with dreams like that. Now I'm sorry if you've become so much like that which you despise the most that you would take pleasure in taking a life. "All who draw the sword will die by the sword", violence is exponential, yet more proof.

I fail to see how being prepared for the eventuality of being on the receiving end of sexual assault and dealing with it appropriately is 'fantasizing about killing people'. I don't make it an active part in my life, and I don't know that I would feel anything other than grim satisfaction that one more predator was out of the world if it came down to me killing a sexual predator.

I also fail to see how refusing to be victimized again makes me like the people who made me a victim.

Roy Karrde

10th January 2007, 08:07 PM

Since this topic is about Iraq, I figured I would show some of the highlights of the Presidential Address tonight, including some things we have talked about and brought up tonight.

This is a strong commitment. But for it to succeed, our commanders say the Iraqis will need our help. So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence – and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I have committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them – five brigades – will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.

and

This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering. Yet over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad’s residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq’s Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace – and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity – and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

DarkTemplarZero

10th January 2007, 08:32 PM

*yawn* how many times have we tried to secure Baghdad, and how many times have people like al-Maliki failed miserably to deliver? Stay the course! Never jump the sinking ship!

And as for Syria, ironic how the old Bush backed al-Maliki's Jihad Office in Syria back in the early 90's to fight Saddam's regime. Ironic how we still pay the Syrian government to torture our "terror suspects". I don't think Bush is making his little torture experts in Syria very happy. I perform extraordinary renditions of Lynyrd Skynyrd's Free Bird on Guitar Hero II, President Bush performs extraordinary renditions on innocent people. Just another reason why I pwn the President :)

Bulbasaur4

11th January 2007, 01:31 AM

I'm just sad that it is now official that we're sending even more troops to Iraq. Now more people get to die on a war that is unofficial and of course, impossible to win. Huzzah.

Mewtwo-D2

11th January 2007, 10:46 AM

I'm just sad that it is now official that we're sending even more troops to Iraq. Now more people get to die on a war that is unofficial and of course, impossible to win. Huzzah.

Tell me, have you protested the troops in Bosnia?

Magmar

19th January 2007, 08:14 AM

DTZ, I can't believe that you find the concept of a rapist getting killed before he gets to sexually, physically and emotionally demolish a woman appalling. I think it's wonderful that M2 has it in her to speak so freely and confidently of her experiences--you go, girl! You let 'em have it!!

As for me being demonic, that implies that I'm possessed. So I'm possessed because I think we're better off with Saddam dead, am I? What does that make you, since you think serial killers who commit crimes against humanities should be allowed to live on the same planet as innocent children? I have a hard time believing anything you say. I guess I should say that no victim mourned Saddam.

Slightly off-topic but somewhat related to Iraq, why is the terror alert level Red in the U.S.??

Heald

19th January 2007, 05:22 PM

I read in a British newspaper today that 8 children have died around the globe (the latest was in Morocco) in bizarre hanging reenactments following the coverage and subsequent footage broadcast around the globe of the hanging. I was indifferent about the hanging beforehand, but now I am vehemently against it. By allowing Saddam to hang, it has made children think it is okay to hang people and they have even made a game out of it, trivialising the controversy surrounding the death penalty and killing people in the process. No one can justify the hanging now. Not even Doom music.

mr_pikachu

19th January 2007, 05:34 PM

My opinion about the execution itself hasn't changed. But I have changed my view about the security at the event. The cell phone never should've been there.

Magmar

19th January 2007, 05:40 PM

Similarly, I noted that many small children at the school I work at would spin around in circles and knock each other down, then play dead. When I asked waht they were playing, they said "Katrina." Kids need to learn that death is not funny or a game from the very start.

Arnen

19th January 2007, 06:15 PM

Of course, no one blames the kids' parents for failing to teach their children that death is not a game.

Magmar

19th January 2007, 06:20 PM

Parents need to teach their children about death from the start. It's not "innocence" not knowing that death is in the world; it's ignorance. Children who understand death at an earlier age aren't bizarre, depressed, morbid children. Children with exposure to death as something trivial (like those who play violent games) tend to be violent but not withdrawn; they need to realize that their game is not "fun".

(Yes, I've studied educational psychology)

DarkTemplarZero

20th January 2007, 11:52 PM

Master Rudy

21st January 2007, 12:38 AM

Let me make sure I've got this right Zero. Just because some of us feel we have a right to self-defense in regards to the rapist you automaticly try to turn it around and spew out your Micheal Moore logic by claiming we're a bunch of beer drinking, murderous redneck Neo Nazi's? Nothing your saying even seems to make any sense anymore Z. Here's a situation for you in regards to the whole rape/self defense thing. And please excuse my language before we get going.

Your walking home late one night from an AI rally, some kind of Hiliary for prez thing.....
*shudders at the thought*
Anyway as your walking a guy that's 6 foot 5 grabs you and drags you into the alley. There are no witnesses and no one is around to help. He beats you to a pulp and then while your down pulls out a .357 magnium and puts it up to your head. From there he rips off your pants and proceeds to fuck you up the ass. When he's done you've got enough time to see his finger starting to pull the trigger. Granted your welcome to your beliefs. However do you mean to tell me you would stick with them and not fight back at any point despite the fact that he just beat you within an inch of your life, made you his prison bitch and is now about to forcibly remove your brain from your head by putting a hole in your head so large that you'll need to IDed by your fingerprints?

If you answer yes to any of the above in that situation and say you would not fight for your life no matter what then personally I think you trying to win this whole "killing Saddam was WRONG!" debate is going to be the least of your problems in life. If you show people your a doormat they will walk all over you. Just keep those things in mind.

Arnen

21st January 2007, 09:32 AM

Hahah so now you are the sole judge of fun Magmar. Because you're a murderous Nazi who has no perspective and hates humanity. I see that. People like you are why we still have war and suffering in this day and age, people like you are the murderers and rapists, the Ahmadinejads and the Bush's, the backward fools who oppose stem cell research because they believe that a clump of cells is more valuable than the lives of thousands who die from Parkinsons and Alzheimers, the psychotic murderers who vehemently support the death penalty in the name of "justice". I am really sick and tired of your evil. If you believe life is a priviledge then you are not only un-American, not only a sick bastard, not only following the same train of thought as Hitler and the Interahamwe, but you are just flat out evil.

I fail to see how teaching children to respect death and not make a game of it makes one "evil". :D

Mewtwo-D2

21st January 2007, 12:30 PM

B4: You're hot. And you make a good point. Huzzah.

Hahah so now you are the sole judge of fun Magmar. Because you're a murderous Nazi who has no perspective and hates humanity. I see that. People like you are why we still have war and suffering in this day and age, people like you are the murderers and rapists, the Ahmadinejads and the Bush's, the backward fools who oppose stem cell research because they believe that a clump of cells is more valuable than the lives of thousands who die from Parkinsons and Alzheimers, the psychotic murderers who vehemently support the death penalty in the name of "justice". I am really sick and tired of your evil. If you believe life is a priviledge then you are not only un-American, not only a sick bastard, not only following the same train of thought as Hitler and the Interahamwe, but you are just flat out evil.

I'm going to address your points one by one, even though you've already shown all of us that you're a demented, attention-whoring liar.

1) "Murderous Nazi". STOP USING TERMS IF YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY MEAN! Quick, tell me three basic beliefs of the Nazi party! If you can't without looking it up, you forfeit the right to ever call anyone a Nazi again. If you can, and you continue to throw the word around, you're just stupid and propogating evil. You are making the word lose meaning and power, so stop tossing it around.

2) "No respect for humanity". You're the one saying victimhood is morally superior, pal. I wouldn't say it's very respectful to humanity to say that the comfort of a rapist and murder is more important than the comfort and life of an innocent person.

3) "People like you". Like what? People who don't believe in just lying there and taking it when people trample all over their rights? People who hate injustice? Not everyone takes being ass-fucked so calmly, and there's no reason why they should.

4) "The murderers and rapists". By your logic, murderers and rapists are superior to the rest of us. You should worship them, as they allow you to pass your sanctimonious morals onto other people. I've been sexually abused. You said I have no right to fight back. Simple logic- if I have no right to fight back against sexual abuse, the abuser's comfort is more valuable than mine.

5) What about the Stalin's, the Pinochet's, the Pol Pot's, the Castro's, the Mao's, the Mussolini's, the Lenin's, the Hitler's? All atheists, buster, so don't even think of pushing the blame onto religion.

6) No religion is against stem cell research, brainiac. What religions (and people well-read in science fiction) oppose is cloning embryos to harvest stem cells. Scientifically, it's completely unnecessary anyway. There are adult stem cells (which they've made significant advances with), and two of the richest sources of immature stem cells (placentas and umbilical cords) are thrown away by the thousands every day. I'm all for research on immature stem cells harvested from placentas and umbilical cords. I think it's downright ghoulish to clone embroyonic humans to get exactly the same thing.

7) Dead criminals have a 0% recidivism rate. Care to argue that point? Should we have left Ted Bundy alive after he admitted to raping and murdering 300 women? You throw around words like "psychotic" and "psychopathic" a lot, but do you know what they mean? Are you aware that some people completely lack the capacity for guilt? Rapists and child molestors have a very high recidivism rate- personally, I think we should kill them all, but would you be pro leaving them in prison for life? Then again, you think people should let themselves be raped, so I would assume the answer is no.

8) Funny, you really seem to be the only "evil" one in the debate. You are the one arguing that my refusal to be sexually victimised again makes me a "PMS-y Attila the Hun bitch". You are the one claiming victimhood is morally superior. Actually, from what I've seen, you are the only one in this debate who is claiming moral superiority in any form. Heald and I are not agreeing on everything in this debate, but you don't see him calling me an "unwashed Hun", do you? He's obviously far more intelligent than you, and has articulated his points well, though he has not insisted that it is "evil" to disagree with him, as you have done.

9) 'Privelege', dear heart. There's no 'd'.

10) People have inborn rights, yes. But when you use your person to deprive another human of their rights, your own rights are forfeit. It is my right to be alive. If someone tries to forcibly remove that right from me, it is my right to protect my rights in whatever manner is accessible to me. If that means killing them, so be it.

11) You are just making yourself look stupider with every post. But keep going- we all need a good laugh now and again.

And Magmar, once I decided that being a victim was pointless, it got easier to talk about. I'm not asking anyone to feel sorry for me, or to respect me based solely on my experience. I believe in telling it like it is- hiding it isn't going to help me heal.

Weasel Overlord

21st January 2007, 12:31 PM

Hey hey hey! No-one calls my Barry a murderous Nazi! How the hell do you figure that out, anyway, DTZ? Seriously. Your bloody logic is fecked up man.

So Barry said that he wouldn't let someone rape/murder him? And that obviously makes him a Nazi? Sorry, but something here doesn't quite add up to me. Cos if you ask me, most everyone, IF they were in said situation, would act the same way. Even you, for all your high-flown morals, simply cannot say what you would do in that situation, unless you've actually experienced it for yourself.

Sure, you're a humanist, or whatever it is you like to call yourself. But in calling my friends Nazis, just because they'd do something that any human would do, you yourself are denying them their rights.

And I honestly can't believe the way you throw the word "evil" around. Is it your favourite word? Is anyone who disagrees with you evil? Cos if that's the case, then you might want to be reconsidering exactly who you're calling a Nazi.