Hours after Saddam faced the same fate he was accused of inflicting on countless thousands during a quarter-century of ruthless power, Iraqi state television showed grainy video of what it said was his body, the head uncovered and the neck twisted at a sharp angle.
A man whose testimony helped lead to Saddam's conviction and execution before sunrise said he was shown the body because "everybody wanted to make sure that he was really executed."
"Now, he is in the garbage of history," said Jawad Abdul-Aziz, who lost his father, three brothers and 22 cousins in the reprisal killings that followed a botched 1982 assassination attempt against Saddam in the Shiite town of Dujail. It was the Dujail killings of which Saddam was convicted.
He deserved to have his neck snapped...get over it you bunch of bleeding heart liberals.
Of course it does. What utter nonsense. Guns kill people. And people who sell guns to killers are helping them kill. A killer armed only with a teapot won't kill as many as a killer with a gun. The very purpose of a gun is to kill. Guns do kill people and people with guns are more able to kill people than people without guns.
Is Osama Bin Laden not responsable for buying the air tickets for 9/11? Air tickets don't kill people, people kill people? Utter nonsense. We sold them guns but we never once thought they might actually use them......... Please, spare me.
Hindsight is 20/20. While it was stupid to sell guns to him, they didn't know he was a killer. If I arm a known killer, I help him kill. If I arm a man using guns to defend himself, then I'm not helping to kill. They thought Saddam would only use them in defense.
A gun makes the process of killing easier. A gun DOESN'T kill for you. You still have to squeeze the trigger.
You analogy with Osama Bin Laden is the thing that is Utter Nonsense.
And of course you sell guns thinking they are actually going to use them. There is more purposes of the gun than actually commiting genocide.
Hindsight?
How about foresight. It's too late with hindsight.
You know what guns are for. We all know what guns are for. It's no use crying hindsight when the person you sold it to shopt someone you didn't want them to.
If you sell someone the means to kill another andother gets killed, you are implicated.
Sorry if you thought selling someone a gun with which to kill someone, was any different to buying them an aeroplane ticket to kill someone. Cry self-defence all you like. Osama's lot justified it exactly the same way. They didn't all say "hey we're mad lets kill random innocents".
Guns kill people, just as glue sticks things together. Both require a human operator both have a specific purpose.
A gun is a tool. It's purpose is to kill. There are not a lot of other purposes it can be used for. There is no Swiss army gun, that also opens cans and can be used clean horses hooves. There is no point pretending that without guns people wouldn't kill each other as much. They wouldn't be able to. The gun has revolutionised the amount of murder a person can do.
A guns purpose is to kill not genocide, but when you sell someone at alot of guns, your actions make genocide a possibility.
I'll bet if someone killed one of your family members you'd change your mind.Personally, if someone killed my family, I'd like to think I had enough backbone not to throw my standards and beliefs out the window upon their death. The killer's death does nothing to help the situation.
I'll bet if someone killed one of your family members you'd change your mind.Personally, if someone killed my family, I'd like to think I had enough backbone not to throw my standards and beliefs out the window upon their death. The killer's death does nothing to help the situation.
A gun is a tool. It's purpose is to kill. There are not a lot of other purposes it can be used for. There is no Swiss army gun, that also opens cans and can be used clean horses hooves.
A gun can be many things: a can opener, a tomatoe smasher, a remote control, an on / off switch, a hole punch, a staple remover, a fly swatter, it can open a rusty valve, it can let air out of your tires... so many uses for a gun other than to kill.
A gun is a tool. It's purpose is to kill. There are not a lot of other purposes it can be used for. There is no Swiss army gun, that also opens cans and can be used clean horses hooves.
A gun can be many things: a can opener, a tomatoe smasher, a remote control, an on / off switch, a hole punch, a staple remover, a fly swatter, it can open a rusty valve, it can let air out of your tires... so many uses for a gun other than to kill.
ive broken locks with em before. ive killed pop cans and coffee cans with em too.
Of course it does. What utter nonsense. Guns kill people. And people who sell guns to killers are helping them kill. A killer armed only with a teapot won't kill as many as a killer with a gun. The very purpose of a gun is to kill. Guns do kill people and people with guns are more able to kill people than people without guns.
Is Osama Bin Laden not responsable for buying the air tickets for 9/11? Air tickets don't kill people, people kill people? Utter nonsense. We sold them guns but we never once thought they might actually use them......... Please, spare me.
Hindsight is 20/20. While it was stupid to sell guns to him, they didn't know he was a killer. If I arm a known killer, I help him kill. If I arm a man using guns to defend himself, then I'm not helping to kill. They thought Saddam would only use them in defense.
A gun makes the process of killing easier. A gun DOESN'T kill for you. You still have to squeeze the trigger.
You analogy with Osama Bin Laden is the thing that is Utter Nonsense.
And of course you sell guns thinking they are actually going to use them. There is more purposes of the gun than actually commiting genocide.
Hindsight?
How about foresight. It's too late with hindsight.
You know what guns are for. We all know what guns are for. It's no use crying hindsight when the person you sold it to shopt someone you didn't want them to.
If you sell someone the means to kill another andother gets killed, you are implicated.
Sorry if you thought selling someone a gun with which to kill someone, was any different to buying them an aeroplane ticket to kill someone. Cry self-defence all you like. Osama's lot justified it exactly the same way. They didn't all say "hey we're mad lets kill random innocents".
A gun is a tool. It's purpose is to kill. There are not a lot of other purposes it can be used for. There is no Swiss army gun, that also opens cans and can be used clean horses hooves. There is no point pretending that without guns people wouldn't kill each other as much. They wouldn't be able to. The gun has revolutionised the amount of murder a person can do.
A guns purpose is to kill not genocide, but when you sell someone at alot of guns, your actions make genocide a possibility.
So any armed force is actually just waiting to kill some random civilians in a time of war? The USA made a very bad decision, but that still doesn't mean it wasn't Saddam who pulled the trigger.
As for your analogy with Osama, I still don't see any connections. You buy an airplane ticket for transportation. You buy weapons for selfdefense and attack force.
A gun easies the progress of killing. Yet fewer are killed as the technology progresses.
The States action made a genocide POSSIBLE. They didn't cause it. The USA has enough weaponry to wipe out the earth, but that doesn't mean they do, just because they can. The USA thought Saddam wouldn't kill civilians just because he could. Just because I could strangle an old lady with my hands doesn't mean that I would. Saddam, is solely responsible for his actions. The USA unfortunately made those actions available to him.
So any armed force is actually just waiting to kill some random civilians in a time of war? The USA made a very bad decision, but that still doesn't mean it wasn't Saddam who pulled the trigger.
As for your analogy with Osama, I still don't see any connections. You buy an airplane ticket for transportation. You buy weapons for selfdefense and attack force.
A gun easies the progress of killing. Yet fewer are killed as the technology progresses.
The States action made a genocide POSSIBLE. They didn't cause it. The USA has enough weaponry to wipe out the earth, but that doesn't mean they do, just because they can. The USA thought Saddam wouldn't kill civilians just because he could. Just because I could strangle an old lady with my hands doesn't mean that I would. Saddam, is solely responsible for his actions. The USA unfortunately made those actions available to him.
Every armed force is everybit capable of killing civilians in a time of war. The armed forces of every nation in the world has done so at one time or another, if not every time. I don't blame the U.S. any more than I blame Saddam. Both had their reasons. Saddam didn't do anything in Iraq my own country didn't when we were running the place.
It's easy to judge someone ones actions in war without actually being there or directly involved in it. We can progandaise it if we like. "Saddam killed his own people", "the Marines murdered babies in Haditha". It isn't like that; and just sloppy thinking to play along with those sensationalists trying to persuade everyone that their particular reason for killing is ok.
You buy guns to kill. Call it "self-defence" if you like. How you justify your killing is up to you. Needless to say almost every killer thinks their own reason has validity.
Osama doesn't see himself as an agressor, or a lunatic terrorist hell bent on killing innocents any more than Bush sees himself this way. He see's himself as a defender. Bombing New York in self defence, just as we bombed Berlin in self defence. He sent those guys the means to kill. They didn't have to do it. It wasn't really Osama that flew planes into buildings on September the 11th, he didn't pull the trigger. But he had a good idea what the money was going to be used for. And (assuming that he did actually send it), is being held responsable for his participation in that attcak. Similarly, when those Palestinians and Lebonese read the words "made in the USA" on those bomb fragments that have killed their families, they know who their enemies are.
Fewer are not killed as technology progresses. More are. The machine gun killed 4 million in WW1, the largest amount of deaths per battle than in any war thus far. 60,000 in two days at the Somme. The newer technology in WW2 killed even more. The Atom bomb killed ten thousand in a second. In Rwanda still more millions died. When two armies of differing tech levels meet, the superior army traditionally takes less casualties. The Spartans would kill thousands for the loss of just 5 or 6 with their shield walls, the Romans the same the British 10's of thousands of Zulu's for a just a few with their rifles.
The USA knew full well Saddam would kill civilians. Civilians get killed in all wars. Or are Americans somehow so thick they don't know that? It's not just the USA that armed Saddam or arms any other military. I wouldn't bother trying to sell me that the USA don't know what guns are for, or don't have any idea of the purpose the people who buy them intend to use them for. I credit you with more intelligence than that.
Just because you can strangle an old lady doesn't mean you would. And in a moment of absolute rage, if you found yourself trying it, you would have a minute or two to rethink your decision. Perhaps even before you crossed the room to reach her. With a gun in your hand it would already be too late. The murder rate in heavily gun controlled countries such as Poland, Britain and Japan is 1/3 of the murder rate of even the safest gun cultures. Guns kill people. People with guns kill more people than people without guns.
To those of you who think he should be in prision instead of dead, is his life really worth the thousands of dollars it would cost to keep him there.
Is the war that lead to his death worth the eventual two trillion dollars that you as tax payers are going to end up paying?
Two trillion dollars to execute Sadam, and Osama hasn't even been found (though wouldn't surprise me if he's already dead). Is completely ridiculous, bordering on naive, to put the cost of this whole crap-fight solely on the aftermath of his trial (ie the cost of keeping him alive).
And Jackcolt, all this talk of guns, guns, guns. Which country did Sadam get the chemicals for biological weapons from again?
The worst part is that far too often your troops get killed in conflicts with weapons and agents sold to the enemy by American companies, or worst yet, by corrupt Dictatorships created by your Gov.
Reality is a bitch.
"(The) Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude." - George W Bush. Oh. My. God.
"Now, he is in the garbage of history," said Jawad Abdul-Aziz, who lost his father, three brothers and 22 cousins in the reprisal killings that followed a botched 1982 assassination attempt against Saddam in the Shiite town of Dujail. It was the Dujail killings of which Saddam was convicted.
He deserved to have his neck snapped...get over it you bunch of bleeding heart liberals.
Imagine all the thousands of people like Jawad Abdul-Aziz who now will never know what happened to all their dear and loved. They will never get to know the truth. Some of the purpose of a trail is to uncover the truth, and find out what really happened. Not just get him convicted as fast as possible to be able to kill him as fast as possible.
Noone here is saying that Saddam didn't deserve it. It's just so bloddy ironic that the new free and democratic Iraq is going to be built up around the exact same methods Saddam also used. If you wanna make Iraq a better place, the why not do it properly? On modern values, and not on ancient outdated values used by dictators.
I was wondering, what is worst, being executed and (from my atheist point of view) never suffer again, never thinking about glorious (in his point of view) pasts again, never missing his loved ones again... is in fact punition, and not bliss.... I wish he could be in solitary for the rest of his life and go mad from the lack of socialization or lack of anything to do... that would be fitting...
So any armed force is actually just waiting to kill some random civilians in a time of war? The USA made a very bad decision, but that still doesn't mean it wasn't Saddam who pulled the trigger.
As for your analogy with Osama, I still don't see any connections. You buy an airplane ticket for transportation. You buy weapons for selfdefense and attack force.
A gun easies the progress of killing. Yet fewer are killed as the technology progresses.
The States action made a genocide POSSIBLE. They didn't cause it. The USA has enough weaponry to wipe out the earth, but that doesn't mean they do, just because they can. The USA thought Saddam wouldn't kill civilians just because he could. Just because I could strangle an old lady with my hands doesn't mean that I would. Saddam, is solely responsible for his actions. The USA unfortunately made those actions available to him.
Every armed force is everybit capable of killing civilians in a time of war. The armed forces of every nation in the world has done so at one time or another, if not every time. I don't blame the U.S. any more than I blame Saddam. Both had their reasons. Saddam didn't do anything in Iraq my own country didn't when we were running the place.
It's easy to judge someone ones actions in war without actually being there or directly involved in it. We can progandaise it if we like. "Saddam killed his own people", "the Marines murdered babies in Haditha". It isn't like that; and just sloppy thinking to play along with those sensationalists trying to persuade everyone that their particular reason for killing is ok.
You buy guns to kill. Call it "self-defence" if you like. How you justify your killing is up to you. Needless to say almost every killer thinks their own reason has validity.
Osama doesn't see himself as an agressor, or a lunatic terrorist hell bent on killing innocents any more than Bush sees himself this way. He see's himself as a defender. Bombing New York in self defence, just as we bombed Berlin in self defence. He sent those guys the means to kill. They didn't have to do it. It wasn't really Osama that flew planes into buildings on September the 11th, he didn't pull the trigger. But he had a good idea what the money was going to be used for. And (assuming that he did actually send it), is being held responsable for his participation in that attcak. Similarly, when those Palestinians and Lebonese read the words "made in the USA" on those bomb fragments that have killed their families, they know who their enemies are.
Fewer are not killed as technology progresses. More are. The machine gun killed 4 million in WW1, the largest amount of deaths per battle than in any war thus far. 60,000 in two days at the Somme. The newer technology in WW2 killed even more. The Atom bomb killed ten thousand in a second. In Rwanda still more millions died. When two armies of differing tech levels meet, the superior army traditionally takes less casualties. The Spartans would kill thousands for the loss of just 5 or 6 with their shield walls, the Romans the same the British 10's of thousands of Zulu's for a just a few with their rifles.
The USA knew full well Saddam would kill civilians. Civilians get killed in all wars. Or are Americans somehow so thick they don't know that? It's not just the USA that armed Saddam or arms any other military. I wouldn't bother trying to sell me that the USA don't know what guns are for, or don't have any idea of the purpose the people who buy them intend to use them for. I credit you with more intelligence than that.
Just because you can strangle an old lady doesn't mean you would. And in a moment of absolute rage, if you found yourself trying it, you would have a minute or two to rethink your decision. Perhaps even before you crossed the room to reach her. With a gun in your hand it would already be too late. The murder rate in heavily gun controlled countries such as Poland, Britain and Japan is 1/3 of the murder rate of even the safest gun cultures. Guns kill people. People with guns kill more people than people without guns.
If I use a gun to shoot someone attacking me, I'd call it self-defense. If I only used the gun when somebody attacks me, I'd call it self-defense. That might be killing in some eyes... but not mine.
Osama killing innocent civilians in a terrorist action, doesn't change anything for him. If he thinks he is fighting for freedom by killing random people, he is quite simple a lunatic. I don't think the USA had the same perception of Saddam before those actions. Osama pulled the trigger just as much as Saddam pulled the trigger. It's not the guys that supplied Osama with weapons or plane tickets that killed those people, that was the guy who had the choice, and that was Osama. Same goes for Saddam.
For the exception of WW2, you see how the death toll decreases as the number of the year increases.
If the USA knew that he would kill innocents just because of the religious beliefs, please do tell why they'd sell him the weapons, and the enter Iraq to remove him? It's not a smart move finacially nor politically.
If I wanted to kill anyone, I could find a replacements for a gun. Strangling one with a piano wire only takes 9-15 seconds. Stabbing one with a knife is pretty quick too. A gun doesn't make YOU kill. If you want to kill, it makes it easier, but it's still you who kill.
- Saddam was hanged with respect; no matter what our views are, his partisans views was important and the respect that was shown at his execution, the way it was done, the patriotic sounds, turn a page of history with as much dignity as possible.
- I blame the USA for the invasion of Iraq, I blame the fact they value more oil than museem...and that is it. There was other ways, but standing on the IF, Saddam also could be blamed, he could have made other choices.
- For everything else the US did in Iraq, they, from a global point of view, act bravely and with dignity. I have mostly praises for the US in how they handle that, and take the death tolls, because they care.
- Saddam and the US where allies in the past.
- Saddam wasn't supporting the terrorist until he runs out of options (survival instinct was strong in him, yet, he accept hanging for the dignity and the greater good of Iraq, he could have been fighting and kicking to the end, yet, he calm himself just before, despite his strong will to live, this is another great sacrifice he mades for his peoples), he was 1 of the most adamant terrorists hunter in the world.
- Saddam despite all his crimes, was also a hero. Stalin was his "model", and Stalin wasn't all bad. I think overall he pretty much replicate a good model of Stalin, with the flaws...and the good point. Saddam is hanged and death, there is no shame in giving him BOTH, the dirty and the honorable.
That's been said, a page in history has been turn. The US, they want to leave, but they won't as long as they have to remain there and that is quite honorable, let's hope that everyone in Iraq accept and understand this, the sooner they stop fighting and the faster they focus on their country, the sooner it will grow and prosper, in it own way, without foreigners influence. See Japan and Germany, they both beat the US at the prosperity game, there is a time where you have to go with the flow...Japan's Emperor make it work, while in Germany, it was the fact they escape USSR...
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
For the exception of WW2, you see how the death toll decreases as the number of the year increases.
Why would we except WW2?
Please re-read your link and compare 20th century wars with those that came before.
You are barking mad if you think killng someone with a cheesewire is as easy as with a gun.
Take note that in WW2, the U.S. willfully and deliberately terrorbombed more civilians than Saddam of Osama ever did, all in the name of self-defense. They are not even in in the same league.
For the exception of WW2, you see how the death toll decreases as the number of the year increases.
Why would we except WW2?
Please re-read your link and compare 20th century wars with those that came before.
You are barking mad if you think killng someone with a cheesewire is as easy as with a gun.
Take note that in WW2, the U.S. willfully and deliberately terrorbombed more civilians than Saddam of Osama ever did, all in the name of self-defense. They are not even in in the same league.
Technologically deficient.
We would exclude WW2 to see the obvious pattern, which is broken with WW2 and pretty much resumed afterwards.
Read my post again. Did I say it was easier killing with a pianowire than with a gun? No. I simply stated that it takes about 9-15 to kill somebody with a pianowire, and about the double time with the bare hands. You don't have so much time to think about what you're doing when you're doing it.
I'm not justifying U.S actions. I'm just not blaming them for what Saddam did, because that is not right.
Too bad he was humiliated by personell before execution. Even if he was evil - he deserves a right to go to hell alone. I think it is the worst for the dictators - to die alone,without followers,without crying crowds and so on. Under Saddam, such attrocities (I think) were common - but new,democratic authorities should avoid it. it is not a democratic way, it is not just: even for Saddam.
The question of Saddam is that whatever decision,it is usefull for Saddam.If you kill him - he's a hero, "hero who died fighting [write your country here] infidels/ / imperialists / crusader". If you leave him alive - he would become symbol for lots of terrorists groups. Now he has become a martyr - unfortunately. And with his death the war would not stop.
Saddam's regime is different from, say, Hitler's reign. Nazi regime collapsed after Hitler, not even Goebbels' propaganda machine could do anything. Remember so-called "action Werewolf", Nazi guerilla movement. It was a failure - at the end of the war almost no one wanted to fight for Fuhrer. After Hitler's death all iliusions disappeared. However, Saddam's rule is different. He did not rely on Al-Qaeda groups or on Muslim extremists and thus was different from Libya or Iran. After the Allied invasion in the Iraq, Al-Qaeda began its own war. Yes, Saddam fanatics are still fighting and they will fight - maybe some of them will be stopped by the death of their symbol. But most groups (I think) have nothing common with the regime. They do not fight for Saddam - in fact,they may be interested in the fact that he is dead - they fight for Al-Qaeda. Their target is not restoring former regime (which is impossible) - they fight Allied troops, Allied supported regime.
So, Saddam's death did not solve anything. If we count this as a symbolical act - yes, it was symbolical act. The old regime of terror is destroyed and burried. One needs not the Saddam to be buried - it is old order that needs to be buried very deep. The Iraq needs peae and this death may be one little step towards it.
--offtopic begins--
I do not support EU official position on SAddam's execution. It is not EU business - the people of Iraq have their own courts and system of justice.
I think,US and Allies should withdraw their troops as soon as Iraq is capable of maintaining at least minimal security. The regime of evil is destroyed, the US has reached its goals - now it is time to withdraw.
I'll bet if someone killed one of your family members you'd change your mind. I'm not going to lie and say that I wouldn't change my mind. I honestly don't know how I would react in that situation. However, the decision at that point would be one of vengeance. And I hope that instead of seeking vengeance I would be able to overcome that emotion and think it through in a way that is best societally.
I think the way I would hope I would react was the same way that the parents of the recent school shooting in Pennsylvania reacted. They practiced forgiveness in the face of all those emotions they must have been feeling.
If a person finds out that someone has killed a member of their family and they then seek that person out and kills them, are they not then guilty of murder themselves? So, at what point did it become moral or not equivalent for a society to say that the government can kill the person?
If a person is restrained and spending the rest of their life behind bars then I think that society has done the moral and effective thing. It has also done the consistent thing in not killing to deter killing.
I as german know, when forcing the few neonazis away, and someone says "germans = nazis" that I first have to explain the unknown idiot the up-to-date what Germany is now, then move on to explain the few idiot citizens the world.
I think, close to no one will listen to the comments about his own land from a foreign one. And learn.
For the exception of WW2, you see how the death toll decreases as the number of the year increases.
Why would we except WW2?
Please re-read your link and compare 20th century wars with those that came before.
You are barking mad if you think killng someone with a cheesewire is as easy as with a gun.
Take note that in WW2, the U.S. willfully and deliberately terrorbombed more civilians than Saddam of Osama ever did, all in the name of self-defense. They are not even in in the same league.
Technologically deficient.
This comming from a Brit... The ones who started "terror bombing" in WW2 http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdresden.htm , but then again this is comming from someone (Baff) who has said that the U.S. really did not do anything in WW2 anyway.
I shoot for the curve... anything above that is gravy.
Comments
Hours after Saddam faced the same fate he was accused of inflicting on countless thousands during a quarter-century of ruthless power, Iraqi state television showed grainy video of what it said was his body, the head uncovered and the neck twisted at a sharp angle.
A man whose testimony helped lead to Saddam's conviction and execution before sunrise said he was shown the body because "everybody wanted to make sure that he was really executed."
"Now, he is in the garbage of history," said Jawad Abdul-Aziz, who lost his father, three brothers and 22 cousins in the reprisal killings that followed a botched 1982 assassination attempt against Saddam in the Shiite town of Dujail. It was the Dujail killings of which Saddam was convicted.
He deserved to have his neck snapped...get over it you bunch of bleeding heart liberals.
I sleep with a pillow under my gun.
I have seen the video. Was quick. And Saddam wasn't smiling like he said he would be.
A gun makes the process of killing easier. A gun DOESN'T kill for you. You still have to squeeze the trigger.
You analogy with Osama Bin Laden is the thing that is Utter Nonsense.
And of course you sell guns thinking they are actually going to use them. There is more purposes of the gun than actually commiting genocide.
Hindsight?
How about foresight. It's too late with hindsight.
You know what guns are for. We all know what guns are for. It's no use crying hindsight when the person you sold it to shopt someone you didn't want them to.
If you sell someone the means to kill another andother gets killed, you are implicated.
Sorry if you thought selling someone a gun with which to kill someone, was any different to buying them an aeroplane ticket to kill someone. Cry self-defence all you like. Osama's lot justified it exactly the same way. They didn't all say "hey we're mad lets kill random innocents".
Guns kill people, just as glue sticks things together. Both require a human operator both have a specific purpose.
A gun is a tool. It's purpose is to kill. There are not a lot of other purposes it can be used for. There is no Swiss army gun, that also opens cans and can be used clean horses hooves. There is no point pretending that without guns people wouldn't kill each other as much. They wouldn't be able to. The gun has revolutionised the amount of murder a person can do.
A guns purpose is to kill not genocide, but when you sell someone at alot of guns, your actions make genocide a possibility.
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
well said.
______________________________
ive broken locks with em before. ive killed pop cans and coffee cans with em too.
______________________________
A gun makes the process of killing easier. A gun DOESN'T kill for you. You still have to squeeze the trigger.
You analogy with Osama Bin Laden is the thing that is Utter Nonsense.
And of course you sell guns thinking they are actually going to use them. There is more purposes of the gun than actually commiting genocide.
Hindsight?
How about foresight. It's too late with hindsight.
You know what guns are for. We all know what guns are for. It's no use crying hindsight when the person you sold it to shopt someone you didn't want them to.
If you sell someone the means to kill another andother gets killed, you are implicated.
Sorry if you thought selling someone a gun with which to kill someone, was any different to buying them an aeroplane ticket to kill someone. Cry self-defence all you like. Osama's lot justified it exactly the same way. They didn't all say "hey we're mad lets kill random innocents".
A gun is a tool. It's purpose is to kill. There are not a lot of other purposes it can be used for. There is no Swiss army gun, that also opens cans and can be used clean horses hooves. There is no point pretending that without guns people wouldn't kill each other as much. They wouldn't be able to. The gun has revolutionised the amount of murder a person can do.
A guns purpose is to kill not genocide, but when you sell someone at alot of guns, your actions make genocide a possibility.
So any armed force is actually just waiting to kill some random civilians in a time of war? The USA made a very bad decision, but that still doesn't mean it wasn't Saddam who pulled the trigger.As for your analogy with Osama, I still don't see any connections. You buy an airplane ticket for transportation. You buy weapons for selfdefense and attack force.
A gun easies the progress of killing. Yet fewer are killed as the technology progresses.
The States action made a genocide POSSIBLE. They didn't cause it. The USA has enough weaponry to wipe out the earth, but that doesn't mean they do, just because they can. The USA thought Saddam wouldn't kill civilians just because he could. Just because I could strangle an old lady with my hands doesn't mean that I would. Saddam, is solely responsible for his actions. The USA unfortunately made those actions available to him.
Every armed force is everybit capable of killing civilians in a time of war. The armed forces of every nation in the world has done so at one time or another, if not every time. I don't blame the U.S. any more than I blame Saddam. Both had their reasons. Saddam didn't do anything in Iraq my own country didn't when we were running the place.
It's easy to judge someone ones actions in war without actually being there or directly involved in it. We can progandaise it if we like. "Saddam killed his own people", "the Marines murdered babies in Haditha". It isn't like that; and just sloppy thinking to play along with those sensationalists trying to persuade everyone that their particular reason for killing is ok.
You buy guns to kill. Call it "self-defence" if you like. How you justify your killing is up to you. Needless to say almost every killer thinks their own reason has validity.
Osama doesn't see himself as an agressor, or a lunatic terrorist hell bent on killing innocents any more than Bush sees himself this way. He see's himself as a defender. Bombing New York in self defence, just as we bombed Berlin in self defence. He sent those guys the means to kill. They didn't have to do it. It wasn't really Osama that flew planes into buildings on September the 11th, he didn't pull the trigger. But he had a good idea what the money was going to be used for. And (assuming that he did actually send it), is being held responsable for his participation in that attcak. Similarly, when those Palestinians and Lebonese read the words "made in the USA" on those bomb fragments that have killed their families, they know who their enemies are.
Fewer are not killed as technology progresses. More are. The machine gun killed 4 million in WW1, the largest amount of deaths per battle than in any war thus far. 60,000 in two days at the Somme. The newer technology in WW2 killed even more. The Atom bomb killed ten thousand in a second. In Rwanda still more millions died. When two armies of differing tech levels meet, the superior army traditionally takes less casualties. The Spartans would kill thousands for the loss of just 5 or 6 with their shield walls, the Romans the same the British 10's of thousands of Zulu's for a just a few with their rifles.
The USA knew full well Saddam would kill civilians. Civilians get killed in all wars. Or are Americans somehow so thick they don't know that? It's not just the USA that armed Saddam or arms any other military. I wouldn't bother trying to sell me that the USA don't know what guns are for, or don't have any idea of the purpose the people who buy them intend to use them for. I credit you with more intelligence than that.
Just because you can strangle an old lady doesn't mean you would. And in a moment of absolute rage, if you found yourself trying it, you would have a minute or two to rethink your decision. Perhaps even before you crossed the room to reach her. With a gun in your hand it would already be too late. The murder rate in heavily gun controlled countries such as Poland, Britain and Japan is 1/3 of the murder rate of even the safest gun cultures. Guns kill people. People with guns kill more people than people without guns.
So now we need to make laws based on our feelings? Ok, I want every hamburger in the world to be free. Free, but only to me cause im damn hungry
Freudian slip there, m8?
Two trillion dollars to execute Sadam, and Osama hasn't even been found (though wouldn't surprise me if he's already dead). Is completely ridiculous, bordering on naive, to put the cost of this whole crap-fight solely on the aftermath of his trial (ie the cost of keeping him alive).
And Jackcolt, all this talk of guns, guns, guns. Which country did Sadam get the chemicals for biological weapons from again?
The worst part is that far too often your troops get killed in conflicts with weapons and agents sold to the enemy by American companies, or worst yet, by corrupt Dictatorships created by your Gov.
Reality is a bitch.
"(The) Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude." - George W Bush.
Oh. My. God.
Noone here is saying that Saddam didn't deserve it. It's just so bloddy ironic that the new free and democratic Iraq is going to be built up around the exact same methods Saddam also used. If you wanna make Iraq a better place, the why not do it properly? On modern values, and not on ancient outdated values used by dictators.
I was wondering, what is worst, being executed and (from my atheist point of view) never suffer again, never thinking about glorious (in his point of view) pasts again, never missing his loved ones again... is in fact punition, and not bliss.... I wish he could be in solitary for the rest of his life and go mad from the lack of socialization or lack of anything to do... that would be fitting...
Every armed force is everybit capable of killing civilians in a time of war. The armed forces of every nation in the world has done so at one time or another, if not every time. I don't blame the U.S. any more than I blame Saddam. Both had their reasons. Saddam didn't do anything in Iraq my own country didn't when we were running the place.
It's easy to judge someone ones actions in war without actually being there or directly involved in it. We can progandaise it if we like. "Saddam killed his own people", "the Marines murdered babies in Haditha". It isn't like that; and just sloppy thinking to play along with those sensationalists trying to persuade everyone that their particular reason for killing is ok.
You buy guns to kill. Call it "self-defence" if you like. How you justify your killing is up to you. Needless to say almost every killer thinks their own reason has validity.
Osama doesn't see himself as an agressor, or a lunatic terrorist hell bent on killing innocents any more than Bush sees himself this way. He see's himself as a defender. Bombing New York in self defence, just as we bombed Berlin in self defence. He sent those guys the means to kill. They didn't have to do it. It wasn't really Osama that flew planes into buildings on September the 11th, he didn't pull the trigger. But he had a good idea what the money was going to be used for. And (assuming that he did actually send it), is being held responsable for his participation in that attcak. Similarly, when those Palestinians and Lebonese read the words "made in the USA" on those bomb fragments that have killed their families, they know who their enemies are.
Fewer are not killed as technology progresses. More are. The machine gun killed 4 million in WW1, the largest amount of deaths per battle than in any war thus far. 60,000 in two days at the Somme. The newer technology in WW2 killed even more. The Atom bomb killed ten thousand in a second. In Rwanda still more millions died. When two armies of differing tech levels meet, the superior army traditionally takes less casualties. The Spartans would kill thousands for the loss of just 5 or 6 with their shield walls, the Romans the same the British 10's of thousands of Zulu's for a just a few with their rifles.
The USA knew full well Saddam would kill civilians. Civilians get killed in all wars. Or are Americans somehow so thick they don't know that? It's not just the USA that armed Saddam or arms any other military. I wouldn't bother trying to sell me that the USA don't know what guns are for, or don't have any idea of the purpose the people who buy them intend to use them for. I credit you with more intelligence than that.
Just because you can strangle an old lady doesn't mean you would. And in a moment of absolute rage, if you found yourself trying it, you would have a minute or two to rethink your decision. Perhaps even before you crossed the room to reach her. With a gun in your hand it would already be too late. The murder rate in heavily gun controlled countries such as Poland, Britain and Japan is 1/3 of the murder rate of even the safest gun cultures. Guns kill people. People with guns kill more people than people without guns.
If I use a gun to shoot someone attacking me, I'd call it self-defense. If I only used the gun when somebody attacks me, I'd call it self-defense. That might be killing in some eyes... but not mine.
Osama killing innocent civilians in a terrorist action, doesn't change anything for him. If he thinks he is fighting for freedom by killing random people, he is quite simple a lunatic. I don't think the USA had the same perception of Saddam before those actions. Osama pulled the trigger just as much as Saddam pulled the trigger. It's not the guys that supplied Osama with weapons or plane tickets that killed those people, that was the guy who had the choice, and that was Osama. Same goes for Saddam.
About the murder rate, you should see this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_disasters_by_death_toll
For the exception of WW2, you see how the death toll decreases as the number of the year increases.
If the USA knew that he would kill innocents just because of the religious beliefs, please do tell why they'd sell him the weapons, and the enter Iraq to remove him? It's not a smart move finacially nor politically.
If I wanted to kill anyone, I could find a replacements for a gun. Strangling one with a piano wire only takes 9-15 seconds. Stabbing one with a knife is pretty quick too. A gun doesn't make YOU kill. If you want to kill, it makes it easier, but it's still you who kill.
personally i call it one up for the good guys......wahoo !!!!
bloke was a wa***r
- Saddam was hanged with respect; no matter what our views are, his partisans views was important and the respect that was shown at his execution, the way it was done, the patriotic sounds, turn a page of history with as much dignity as possible.
- I blame the USA for the invasion of Iraq, I blame the fact they value more oil than museem...and that is it. There was other ways, but standing on the IF, Saddam also could be blamed, he could have made other choices.
- For everything else the US did in Iraq, they, from a global point of view, act bravely and with dignity. I have mostly praises for the US in how they handle that, and take the death tolls, because they care.
- Saddam and the US where allies in the past.
- Saddam wasn't supporting the terrorist until he runs out of options (survival instinct was strong in him, yet, he accept hanging for the dignity and the greater good of Iraq, he could have been fighting and kicking to the end, yet, he calm himself just before, despite his strong will to live, this is another great sacrifice he mades for his peoples), he was 1 of the most adamant terrorists hunter in the world.
- Saddam despite all his crimes, was also a hero. Stalin was his "model", and Stalin wasn't all bad. I think overall he pretty much replicate a good model of Stalin, with the flaws...and the good point. Saddam is hanged and death, there is no shame in giving him BOTH, the dirty and the honorable.
That's been said, a page in history has been turn. The US, they want to leave, but they won't as long as they have to remain there and that is quite honorable, let's hope that everyone in Iraq accept and understand this, the sooner they stop fighting and the faster they focus on their country, the sooner it will grow and prosper, in it own way, without foreigners influence. See Japan and Germany, they both beat the US at the prosperity game, there is a time where you have to go with the flow...Japan's Emperor make it work, while in Germany, it was the fact they escape USSR...
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Why would we except WW2?
Please re-read your link and compare 20th century wars with those that came before.
You are barking mad if you think killng someone with a cheesewire is as easy as with a gun.
Take note that in WW2, the U.S. willfully and deliberately terrorbombed more civilians than Saddam of Osama ever did, all in the name of self-defense. They are not even in in the same league.
Technologically deficient.
Why would we except WW2?
Please re-read your link and compare 20th century wars with those that came before.
You are barking mad if you think killng someone with a cheesewire is as easy as with a gun.
Take note that in WW2, the U.S. willfully and deliberately terrorbombed more civilians than Saddam of Osama ever did, all in the name of self-defense. They are not even in in the same league.
Technologically deficient.
We would exclude WW2 to see the obvious pattern, which is broken with WW2 and pretty much resumed afterwards.
Read my post again. Did I say it was easier killing with a pianowire than with a gun? No. I simply stated that it takes about 9-15 to kill somebody with a pianowire, and about the double time with the bare hands. You don't have so much time to think about what you're doing when you're doing it.
I'm not justifying U.S actions. I'm just not blaming them for what Saddam did, because that is not right.
Too bad he was humiliated by personell before execution. Even if he was evil - he deserves a right to go to hell alone. I think it is the worst for the dictators - to die alone,without followers,without crying crowds and so on. Under Saddam, such attrocities (I think) were common - but new,democratic authorities should avoid it. it is not a democratic way, it is not just: even for Saddam.
The question of Saddam is that whatever decision,it is usefull for Saddam.If you kill him - he's a hero, "hero who died fighting [write your country here] infidels/ / imperialists / crusader". If you leave him alive - he would become symbol for lots of terrorists groups. Now he has become a martyr - unfortunately. And with his death the war would not stop.
Saddam's regime is different from, say, Hitler's reign. Nazi regime collapsed after Hitler, not even Goebbels' propaganda machine could do anything. Remember so-called "action Werewolf", Nazi guerilla movement. It was a failure - at the end of the war almost no one wanted to fight for Fuhrer. After Hitler's death all iliusions disappeared. However, Saddam's rule is different. He did not rely on Al-Qaeda groups or on Muslim extremists and thus was different from Libya or Iran. After the Allied invasion in the Iraq, Al-Qaeda began its own war. Yes, Saddam fanatics are still fighting and they will fight - maybe some of them will be stopped by the death of their symbol. But most groups (I think) have nothing common with the regime. They do not fight for Saddam - in fact,they may be interested in the fact that he is dead - they fight for Al-Qaeda. Their target is not restoring former regime (which is impossible) - they fight Allied troops, Allied supported regime.
So, Saddam's death did not solve anything. If we count this as a symbolical act - yes, it was symbolical act. The old regime of terror is destroyed and burried. One needs not the Saddam to be buried - it is old order that needs to be buried very deep. The Iraq needs peae and this death may be one little step towards it.
--offtopic begins--
I do not support EU official position on SAddam's execution. It is not EU business - the people of Iraq have their own courts and system of justice.
I think,US and Allies should withdraw their troops as soon as Iraq is capable of maintaining at least minimal security. The regime of evil is destroyed, the US has reached its goals - now it is time to withdraw.
--offtopic ends--
http://www.mmoblogg.wordpress.com
I think the way I would hope I would react was the same way that the parents of the recent school shooting in Pennsylvania reacted. They practiced forgiveness in the face of all those emotions they must have been feeling.
If a person finds out that someone has killed a member of their family and they then seek that person out and kills them, are they not then guilty of murder themselves? So, at what point did it become moral or not equivalent for a society to say that the government can kill the person?
If a person is restrained and spending the rest of their life behind bars then I think that society has done the moral and effective thing. It has also done the consistent thing in not killing to deter killing.
H.&D.
Leave this discussion to the U.S. guys.
I as german know, when forcing the few neonazis away, and someone says "germans = nazis" that I first have to explain the unknown idiot the up-to-date what Germany is now, then move on to explain the few idiot citizens the world.
I think, close to no one will listen to the comments about his own land from a foreign one.
And learn.
H.&D.
Why would we except WW2?
Please re-read your link and compare 20th century wars with those that came before.
You are barking mad if you think killng someone with a cheesewire is as easy as with a gun.
Take note that in WW2, the U.S. willfully and deliberately terrorbombed more civilians than Saddam of Osama ever did, all in the name of self-defense. They are not even in in the same league.
Technologically deficient.
This comming from a Brit... The ones who started "terror bombing" in WW2 http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdresden.htm , but then again this is comming from someone (Baff) who has said that the U.S. really did not do anything in WW2 anyway.I shoot for the curve... anything above that is gravy.