Saddam’s Execution: A Truly Historical Moment

44 Responses to “Saddam’s Execution: A Truly Historical Moment”

1. Don Cox on December 30th, 2006 6:34 pm

   “what’s up with Libya declaring an official 3 days of mourning?”

   What do you expect? Ghaddafi is another such murdering dictator. He should be on trial too. He knows this is about him as well as Saddam.

2. Drima on December 30th, 2006 6:41 pm

   Ah don’t we all just love Ghaddafi? Frankly speaking, I would vehemently oppose it if he gets put up for an execution. He’s just too entertaining. I’ll surely miss him you know.

3. Finnpundit on December 30th, 2006 6:43 pm

   You are ranting, and I can’t stand that kind of emotional garbage.

   You’re twisting facts to an absurd degree, which is very problematical in the Muslim world where that kind of spinning has a way of taking on a life of its own.

   Bush a war criminal? Not once has he ordered the killing of civilians, as you contend. In fact, the war was completely justified, given the fact that Saddam had already broken the initial truce of 1992. The US, in fact, showed great patience (over a decade of patience), before it decided to resume the war again.

   Rumsfeld, also, is no criminal. Failure in policy is not a criminal act in a democracy.

   As to the US troops that killed the family, I believe one of them is on death row right now; the others I think got life imprisonment. Why were they tried in the US, instead of Iraq? Because that is the present deal that the two governments have with each other. In fact, the US insists on it, whenever governments have asked the US to station troops in their countries. The US does make exceptions on an incidental basis, as in the Philippines. This is entirely discretional. If countries don’t like it, they shouldn’t invite the US in to protect them, or make the US their enemies.

4. Andrew Brehm on December 30th, 2006 6:50 pm

   “Bush can surely be considered a war criminal if he gave orders to his troops to kill innocent civilians on purpose.”

   And what, apart from anti-Americanism, makes people believe that he did?

   The usual argument I hear is that Bush committed war crimes because he is an evil Republican. And Republicans are evil because people like Bush commit war crimes.

5. Drima on December 30th, 2006 7:14 pm

   “Bush a war criminal? Not once has he ordered the killing of civilians, as you contend.”

   Heh? Where on earth did I mention that?

   In fact read this from a previous post I blogged a while ago:

   “At least the US army isn’t interested in killing innocent people on purpose. Because if they were they wouldn’t be wasting their time and money developing high tech precision guided missiles costing millions of dollars to surgically strike enemy targets and avoid civilian casualties as much as possible. Why would they want to go through that entire headache if they really did love killing innocent people? Why? Tell me please because maybe somewhere in my brain there’s some lose nut that needs some tightening. Tell me. Why would they bother with all that?”

   On this very post I only said:

   “Bush can surely be considered a war criminal *if* he gave orders to his troops to kill innocent civilians on purpose.”

   I don’t believe he did. Maybe I should have mentioned that but I didn’t because I was putting the last bit of the rant in the form of questions… questions which you have actually managed to answer in your last paragraph.

   As for Rumsfailed, I honestly don’t like the guy and I think he should be held accountable for how badly the war in Iraq has gone. Call it emotional garbage if you want but I’m no Rumsfailed fan.

6. Andrew Brehm on December 30th, 2006 8:24 pm

   Anybody who gives orders to kill innocent civilians on purpose is a war criminal (or should be suspected of being one and tried).

   But the problem here is that the term “war criminal” is used to happily in this conflict.

   Yes, Saddam Hussein is a war criminal. He used chemical weapons against civilians, he slaughtered hundreds of thousands because they opposed his rule, and he launched rockets at Israeli cities. He also supported terrorists in Canaan and probably elsewhere too.

   But that’s not what most people mean when they say “war criminal”. A “war criminal” in the most often-used sense is a Jew or American involved in a war.

   I am sure that if you google for “George Bush” and “war criminal” you will find more sites that call him a war criminal then sites that mention his war AGAINST a war criminal. A “war crime” in this sense is anything George Bush did, it has nothing to do with the actual technical definition of the term.

   There are two ways of making somebody look bad. You can call him something bad and thus associate him with the idea (”Johnny is a thief.”) or you can recount what that person did (”Johnny stole an apple.”). The difference is that the first case works without having to give a specific example.

   I think I have to update my dictionary:

   http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/index.asp?aid=81628

7. Mimz on December 30th, 2006 8:41 pm

   They performed his execution on Eid El-Adha - a Muslim celebration day.
   And his execution was performed by Americans.. which in the eyes of many people makes him a martyr (a Muslim martyr could be a Muslim killed by a non-Muslim).
   I don’t see how this theory applies to him.. he really is a “war criminal” and war criminals do not usually end up as martyrs.

8. Rihab on December 30th, 2006 9:04 pm

   It does matter whether or not he receives a fair trial, and it’s this very lack of interest in justice that causes 99% of problems in underdeveloped countries (especially Sudan). Yes, Saddam was a brute and ruthless dictator but no matter how brutal you are and no matter how obvious your crimes are, you are innocent until proven guilty and you have the right to defend yourself. This trial was conducted in a seriously flawed manner right from the word go. First of all, Iraq is still effectively under occupation and on the brink of (if not, in the middle of) civil war and so such an environment in itself creates a higher chance of bias in a trial, second of all Saddam should have been tried for ALL his crimes before facing any form of punishment - something the Kurds requested before his execution and lastly and most importantly, is that given that Saddam’s crimes went well beyond the borders of his own country he should have been tried in the International Criminal Court, and that really would have ensured a fair and just trial.

   Yes, Saddam was a ruthless ruler, but even ruthless rulers (e.g. Slobodan Milosevic??) deserve a fair and just trial. Justice is one of the essential pillars of a civilized society, and the second we choose to let go of it we take our first step towards our own demise.

9. halalhippie on December 30th, 2006 9:22 pm

   “And ya whatever happened to those US troops who raped the Iraqi girl, killed her and then killer her family? ”

   if you’re thinking about :
   http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/10/iraq/main1789544.shtml

   it seems they’re on trial as we speak. They _may_ face death penalty.

   That’s free press for ya: soldiers just don’t get away with messing around.
   Take the Iran/Iraq war of the 80es: I don’t recall any soldiers standing trial for war crimes. Does that mean they were all chivalrous chevaliers ?
   I doubt it.

   Other than that, the hanging of Saddam is IMHO a mistake. 5 years from now some jihadies with a memory deficit will declare him a Shaheed and start blowing shit up to avenge him.

   ” A Muslim hero, standing up against the Evil US bla bla bla”

   Finnpundit: “Failure in policy is not a criminal act in a democracy.” I believe a lot of politicians are happy about that

10. tommy on December 31st, 2006 2:39 am

    Rihab,

    It does matter whether or not he receives a fair trial, and it’s this very lack of interest in justice that causes 99% of problems in underdeveloped countries (especially Sudan).

    Saddam’s crimes were of such an unusually massive scale that he could not have be tried in an ordinary courtroom. There would be no way to select a jury of his peers in an appropriate way. That is what tribunals like his own, and like the Nuremberg Trials for the Nazis, are for. The man was on trial for quite a while. It was often criticized for its length. The court was also frequently criticized for allowing Saddam to turn it into a circus. This was no Stalinist show trial. He had his chance to defend the indefensible. No one should be surprised by the outcome.

    Dare I say it, in countries like Sudan neither too lengthy a trial nor a circus-like atmosphere would be a problem for those condemned unjustly.

11. lisa on December 31st, 2006 7:12 am

    ohh, i sooo agree with you.

    i had to erase a sarcastic post cause it was too sarcastic– but my first thought when i saw my blog buddies writing all “oh, how awful, how bad of america to stage this!” was– PLEASE!

    no one frickin blogs every damn day when 50 people are killed and tortured in iraq, but as soon as there’s a hint that someone is blaming america for something half-way funny, hand-wringing! soul searching! oh the shame! it should have been bush! what-ever.

    i do NOT get the hierarchy of outrage (most of my friends list is on the outrage side). i can excuse it when i watch al jazeera and they say retarded things like “this is an insult and humiliation for muslims worldwide”. fine. aljay is kinda prepping everyone for that. it makes good ratings. but idiotic americans have to have everything be about them! so if shia and kurd court rule to do the execution in a stupid way (ie, on the morning of sunni eid), it has to be America that orchestrated it— cause George Bush really knows when the hell Eid is, let alone what Eid is?! And if Am. possibly orchestrated it, then we have to be all “oh dear oh my why not Rumsfled how unfair” or whatever.

    so those are two things annoying me. 1- americans making this whole thing about themselves. and 2- hand wringing about Saddam. jesus who cares! people die everyday, huge amounts of people are being bombed and executed for nothing, and -that’s– who your gonna mourn? let him bite the damn dust.

12. The Raccoon on December 31st, 2006 3:51 pm

    In the name of the millions of people Saddam tortured and murdered I say: ding dong, the witch is dead!

    And I hope this sends the right message to assorted other genocidal tyrants. These fucks are not beyond the reach of justice.

    And to all the people who even try somehow to equate Bush to Saddam, or mistakes of American forces to genocide… seek professional psychiatric aid. Or help improve the hunam gene pool by offing yourselves ASAP. There is by far too much insanity in the world, and such moronic examples of insanity endanger not only yourselves but many others as well.

    And to conclude - ding, dong, the witch is dead!

13. Rihab on December 31st, 2006 4:06 pm

    tommy,

    Saddam’s crimes were of such an unusually massive scale that he could not have be tried in an ordinary courtroom. There would be no way to select a jury of his peers in an appropriate way. That is what tribunals like his own, and like the Nuremberg Trials for the Nazis, are for. The man was on trial for quite a while. It was often criticized for its length. The court was also frequently criticized for allowing Saddam to turn it into a circus. This was no Stalinist show trial. He had his chance to defend the indefensible. No one should be surprised by the outcome.

    :s

    I never said he should be tried in an ordinary courtroom, on the contrary I said he should have been tried in the International Criminal Court, especially since his crimes went beyond his borders - and in the case that Iraq did not sign up to the ICC then an International Criminal Tribunal for Iraq should have been set up under the guidance of the UN in the exact same way it was set up to prosecute Slobodan Milosevic for his war crimes. Also, I’m not sure you can really compare this to the Nuremburg trials, for one thing, we’re talking about THE trial through which the need to have an international criminal law was realised, furthermore, the UN was still in its starting years so an international court would not have been formed under its guidance since there was no international law to go by.

    In any case, Saddam faced trial for only one crime, which wasn’t even one of his more serious (Halabja? invasion of Kuwait?), and so justice has not been fully served. Moreover, when a defendant is allowed to “turn the court room into a circus”, it further highlights the incompetence of the court not how just it was. In short, he was punished in the easiest and quickest way possible, which is neither fair nor just to those who suffered under him.

    Also, about the trial “going on for a while”, Milosevic’s trial went on for 5yrs and he had to face charges of crimes committed during a series of wars that went on for 10yrs. Saddam had to face trial for crimes committed throughout the period of his 20+ years of rule, and he got executed after a year and a half of being charged??

    Dare I say it, in countries like Sudan neither too lengthy a trial nor a circus-like atmosphere would be a problem for those condemned unjustly.

    I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at with this comment? In any case, as I already said, the lack of justice in Sudan is the cause of most of its problems… so….yeah…. not really sure what you’re trying to say…

14. Rihab on December 31st, 2006 4:08 pm

    P.S> didn’t mean for the rest of my reply to appear in italics, just messed up the html coding.

15. D.B Shobrawy on December 31st, 2006 6:06 pm

    When saddam was first sentenced to death a friend told me, “its wrong, they shouldnt execute him unless they are going to execute other guilty people like Sharon” now obviously that is pure idiocy and i thought that was a rare sentiment but i was wrong. Apparently their are alot of stupid people out there. In reality Saddams actions stand alone and dont requre comparisson to anyone else. Good ridance.

    P.S. thanks for the ping drima

16. Andrew Brehm on December 31st, 2006 8:54 pm

    “a friend told me, “its wrong, they shouldnt execute him unless they are going to execute other guilty people like Sharon””

    I don’t get it. What has Sharon to do with it?

17. Craig on December 31st, 2006 10:07 pm

    Off the topic of Saddam but still on the topic of the rant:

    Those pigs should get executed too. Period. OR they should at least get the harshest punishment available under US law.

    I agree. At least one of the conspirators took a plea bargain to testify against the others and got life in prison - but WITH the possibilty of parole. That pisses me off. This is a capital case and the penalty should be either death or life in prison, no parole. Period.

    Plus if this US soldier got tried in Philippines, shouldn’t other US soldiers guilty of ugly crimes committed against Iraqis stand trial in Iraq itself?

    The case in PI was unusual because the US has not had a “status of forces” agreement that outlines matters of prosecution sine we closed all our bases there.

    US military personnel have been tried in countries where the Status of Forces agreement stated clearly that American troops were to be tried by the US military. A few high profile cases in South Korea and Japan come to mind. This was done as a courtesy, and I personally don’t have a problem with it. I would have had a problem with it when it comes to Iraq, though. Sorry, Drima, I just don’t trust that corrupt and sectarian government to put American troops on trial, and since the Status of Forces agreement we have with Iraq states that US military personnel are under US jurisdiction, we are handling the situation correctly by putting them on trial ourselves. And they will be punished. I hope with the death penalty. But they won’t be tortured to death. And they won’t be made a spectacle of to feed anti-Americanism in the middle east. It’s bad eneough already, don’t you think?

18. howie on January 1st, 2007 6:52 am

    Something I never hear mentioned…who is probably recent history’s #1 killer of Muslims?

    Would it not be Saddam? He must be responsible for at least 1/2 million Iranians…then the thousands of Kurds, gobs of Shia, a whole number of Kuwaitis, and Lawd only knows how many Iraqi citizens in general…

    Does anybody beat him?

    Saddam was a criminal, a torturer, murderer and sexual deviant of the highest degree…

    What possible right did he have to go on living? How can Libyians and Palestinians and others be celebrating his life? Are they sick or just blinded by hatred?

19. Drima on January 1st, 2007 10:17 am

    Craig, thanx for your points.

    Howie, hmmm. Saddam Hussein: number one killer of Muslims in recent history? You might actually be right.

20. Andrew Brehm on January 1st, 2007 10:48 am

    “How can Libyians and Palestinians and others be celebrating his life? Are they sick or just blinded by hatred?”

    I don’t know about Libyans (as opposed to the Libyan government), but Palestinian Arabs seem to support absolutely anyone who murders enough people.

    It is just sometimes hard to understand why so many Arabs enthusiasticallly support the worst killers (of Muslims) and then scream bloody murder when they come to believe that America or Israel killed a Muslim.

21. The Usual Suspect on January 1st, 2007 4:57 pm

    I have a confession to make.
    I haven’t watched the video of the hanging and I am avoiding the photos of it too.
    It’s not because I’m not happy at the outcome- it’s just that I can’t bring myself to watch someone die.
    Is there something wrong with me? Should I be seeking help because I really really am happy that he got what he deserved.
    I can watch the Saw trilogy without flinching and put away a burger and chips while watching a gory slasher film with a huge grin on my face (I’m a horror fanatic).
    So why am I scrolling down quickly so I don’t have to look at the picture on this post?

22. Craig on January 1st, 2007 6:11 pm

    Suspect, I didn’t watch the actual hanging video either. And I only watched the part leading up to it once. I’ve seen people die violent deaths before but there’s something about executions I have an aversion to. I guess maybe it’s the fact that the person KNOWS they are about to die which makes it really horrible to me.

23. Daana on January 2nd, 2007 1:04 am

    Drima bro,

    First of all the guy is dead and in Islam we should never bash a person who is dead no matter who they are, what religion they follow, or what they have done. At this point he is in Allah’s hands and only Allah can judge him.

    Second of all…let me just say that I don’t want ppl to accuse me of defending the guy because of what I am about to say…yes the man has done many horrible things in his life but he has also done so many things for his country that deserve to be mentioned and remembered…his plan for modernizing iraq by making iraq benefit from oil revenues rather than the international oil monopolies..his campaign to eradicate illiteracy and making education free and compulsory to everyone up to the highest levels of education, he established the best health system in the middle east which was free to everyone, and won the UNESCO’s award for that. so he actually did have his country’s best interest at heart…so why did he commit all these atrocities…surely not out of the blue. I mean I don’t actually think that he woke up one day and decided to just go kill some shi’ites or gas kurds but that stil doesn’t mean that his extreme measures were ok or justified. Another important point…Saddam was for a very long time a friend of America..and they supported his war against Iran, also American government played a very important role in supporting and bringing the Ba’ath party to power so they could avoid other leaders in Iraq that had communist inclinations.

    Finally, even though it is useless to say….the war on Iraq was not justified at all…I don’t care what nobody says….it did not have the Iraqi people or the American people’s interest because Saddam was not a threat to them…and the claim that America went there because of WMDs was also another lie waged by the Bush administration because none have been found. adios and chech out this site http://www.harpers.org/TheCaseForImpeachment.html

24. Andrew Brehm on January 2nd, 2007 7:06 am

    What exactly did America do to bring the Ba’ath to power?

    But be that as it may, what would you accept as proof that Saddam either still had WMDs or that it was reasonable to assume that he might?

    What about German gas masks and chemicals?

    http://www.american-interrupted.com/media/video/europeanunion.wmv

    http://experts.about.com/e/h/ha/halabja_poison_gas_attack.htm

    (Can you imagine how proud I was of being German when the Americans found out that it was German poison gas that Saddam used to murder Kurds? You cannot imagine, I am sure. I thought we had left that behind us!)

    I take it the NY Times article about Saddam’s nuclear program doesn’t count?

    What about the stuff the White House released about what they found? Did you ever read that? What do you think about it?

    As for the US helping Saddam, the way I see it we have an Iraqi monarchy allied with the US (and Iran and Turkey) in the Baghdad Pact. Abdul Karim Qassim overthrew the monarchy and Iraq became an ally of the Soviet Union. Abdul Salam Arif and his brother Abdul Rahman Arif then overthrew that guy. Then the Ba’ath took power, overthrowing these guys.

    Saddam’s Iraq boughts weapons from China, the Soviet Union, and France (and chemicals from Germany). Almost nothing was bought from the US and UK. Where exactly does the idea come from that the US had anything to do with the Ba’ath party taking power?

25. Andrew Brehm on January 2nd, 2007 7:11 am

    When people say that Saddam was a friend of the US, what exactly do they mean? What are they referring to?

    I am sure it cannot be his policy of buying weapons from America’s enemies and competitors?

    Perhaps it was Saddam’s hatred for Israel?

    Maybe it was Saddam’s non-return to the American-led Baghdad pact that Iraq used to be a part of a few revolutions earlier?

    What exactly made Saddam a friend of the US? Where does that legend come from?

    I often hear how the US helped him come to power (but cannot ever find any details) or how they were such good friends ever since (but I cannot find anything Iraq ever did for the US or vice versa).

    Please, enlighten me! Tell me either the details or tell me the source for the legend.

    (Or is this a well-known fact based on the indisputable truth that Saddam was evil hence he MUST have been supported by the US?)

26. The Usual Suspect on January 2nd, 2007 11:29 am

    Craig
    Thanks mate.
    I feel normal again

27. DP on January 2nd, 2007 11:43 am

    [/i]Rihab:[quote]In any case, Saddam faced trial for only one crime, which wasn’t even one of his more serious (Halabja? invasion of Kuwait?), and so justice has not been fully served.[/quote]
    He’s dead. What do you want to do, hang him again?

    I hate to break it to you but justice has been done. A hanging isn’t like a traffic offense where you can add another $100 fine. If the Iraqis wanted to put Saddam on trial for every crime that he has ever committed then he would have been 100 before any sentence could have been carried out.

    It doesn’t matter if you killed 1 person, 100 people, or 100,000 people. The penalty of death can only be given once.

28. Daana on January 2nd, 2007 2:06 pm

    Andrew,

    the CIA recruited Saddam Hussein to assassinate Abdul Karim Qassim who backed out of the Pro-West Baghdad pact. Abdul Salam Arif when he came to power his cabinet was appointed from the Ba’ath party, and he did not become anti Ba’athist until after a year when he arrested the Ba’athist leaders..so the man did have Ba’athist inclinations and used the Ba’ath party to get to power . As for articles about Saddam’s nuclear weapon program and the “evidence” the white house showed about what they “found” then where is it???? plus, why is Saddam’s nuclear weapon program such a big problem now, and why isn’t other countries’ nuclear weapon programs questioned unless these countries do not necessarily appeal to European and American governments. When you say that Saddam bought all his weapons from china and the soviet union and almost nothing was bought from America or Britain then where is ur proof??? Saddam may not have been America’s “friend” perse but they did support him for a really long time especially during the Reagan administration..and the man was in the hands of the CIA for a really long time from his early 20s or so.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein
    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/opinion/article2117063.ece
    http://www.unknownnews.net/saddam.html

29. Drima on January 2nd, 2007 2:21 pm

    testing… please turn off you damn italics

30. Rihab on January 2nd, 2007 2:28 pm

    DP

    He’s dead. What do you want to do, hang him again?

    Ummm no, when you say that someone should be tried for all his crimes that’s not called wanting to hang him again. It may be boring and mundane for people such as yourself, however, the law needs to take its full course and he should be tried for all his crimes.

    I hate to break it to you but justice has been done. A hanging isn’t like a traffic offense where you can add another $100 fine. If the Iraqis wanted to put Saddam on trial for every crime that he has ever committed then he would have been 100 before any sentence could have been carried out.

    It doesn’t matter if you killed 1 person, 100 people, or 100,000 people. The penalty of death can only be given once.

    I hate to break it to you but there is a process that needs to be carried out for justice to be served, when that process isn’t observed then justice has not been served. I don’t get why you’re so fixated on his punishment, it’s not an issue of punishing people, it’s about safeguarding people’s rights and his victims, all his victims have the right to see him stand trial for his crimes. If he has to sit through it ’til he’s 100, tough, that’s what has to be done, Milosevic died before his sentence was given out because he had to go through the process. It’s not a simple issue of, oh we all know that he’s a bad guy, bang bang, job done. If that’s the way justice will be served with one man, it’ll be the way it’s served with a million men bringing society to a state of chaos. International laws are meant to be observed not treated as pretty slogans.

31. Drima on January 2nd, 2007 2:32 pm

    testing again…

32. Drima on January 2nd, 2007 2:35 pm

    Ok one last time…

33. Drima on January 2nd, 2007 2:36 pm

    Wohooooo, the annoying italics are GONE… okay ranting can continue now.

34. Rihab on January 2nd, 2007 2:40 pm

    Sorry Drima for screwing up the italics, you just needed to add the but i just did it on my reply..

    heh… umm sorry again! :$

35. Andrew Brehm on January 2nd, 2007 3:59 pm

    Daana,

    The Wikipedia article on Saddam doesn’t say anything about American involvement in either the party’s or Saddam’s rise to power.

    The other two articles are an opinion piece and another article without sources.

    That maybe a source for the legend but it is not an example of what the US did to help Saddam.

    In fact, the Wikipedia article states how Saddam’s oil policies were certainly not pro-American and another Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Sales_to_Iraq) will tell you how miniscule American arms deliveries to Iraq were during Saddam’s reign.

    I’m really not seeing this great involvement that you speak about here.

    And seriously, an opinion piece by _Robert Fisk_ as a source???

    Why does the American involvement only appear in opinion pieces and never in statistics (where French involvement does appear)?

    Is it the American power to suppress information? If America has such a power, why does everybody (at least those who read Robert Fisk) know about it?

    Now, the truth is simply that America didn’t help Saddam to rise to power, couldn’t stand him while he was in power (if perhaps only because of his oil policies), and, in contrast to Russia, China, and France, did not arm him.

    The chemical agents found after the invasion were German, not American.

    The tanks the Iraq army used were Russian, not American.

    And the ammunition Iraq used was French, not American.

    0.5% of arms sales to Iraq during Saddam’s reign were US sales. 68.9% were Russian sales, about 12% each French and Chinese.

    No, Daana, Saddam was a Russian and French client, not an American puppet.

    You will have to blame Russia.

36. Andrew Brehm on January 2nd, 2007 4:01 pm

    What Fisk calls “the shameless, outrageous, covert military support which the United States - and Britain - gave to Saddam for more than a decade” was in reality 0.5% and 1.3% of total arms sales to Saddam during the 1980s.

    And the secret of “an Iraqi jet launched a missile attack on the American frigate, killing more than a sixth of the crew” might be a good example for American stupidity, but hardly for a deep friendship.

37. Howie on January 2nd, 2007 4:43 pm

    I don’t know if I understand people’s complaints about who America sides with…

    People “switch partners” depending on a variety of reasons. Syria and Egypt kissed the Russians butts for years and the Russians were major oppressors of Muslims (not Checneya, all the “stans”, Yugoslavia (by proxie) etc. etc.

    There ain’t much purity in politics and when we supported Saddam it was during a period where we had been treated rather rudely by Iran..who had been treated rudely by us in the 1950’s and on and on and on forever and ever.

    But Saddam did get the rope and it was more than fair…he got far better than he deserved.

38. The Raccoon on January 2nd, 2007 4:49 pm

    TUS -

    Death is a horrible thing. Unless you eat the corpse, of course. You didn’t, and, as Craig said, execution is a bad way to go (although there is the seldom-received bonus of having the time to properly prepare for death).

    I did’t watch the execution, too. It’s a job that had to be done, but it isn’t a reason to revel in it. Kind of like taking out the trash.

39. The Sudanese Thinker » FULL Video of Saddam’s Execution: Very Disturbing Yet Revealing on January 2nd, 2007 5:35 pm

    […] The full video of Saddam’s execution was NOT pleasant. It was very freaky and my reaction to it was very different from the reaction I got watching the other video on TV. I was disturbed. The execution seemed like no act of justice at all. It was so unprofessional and it seemed like an act of pure revenge. The cheers of the crowd, especially the cheers of the pro-Sardists are revealing. Why the hell were they there??!! It’s as if Sadr’s supporters have infiltrated every single place in Iraq. That’s defintely NOT good. What was freakier is the fact that I saw a little bit of me in those who cheered as Saddam dropped to his death. A few days ago when I watched the news of Saddam’s execution, I was super happy, excited and in a state of disbelief. Little did I realize until now that the excitement I felt was in a way me getting a sweet taste of revenge. I don’t want to be that guy. I don’t want to be those people who cheered happily in the spirit of revenge as Saddam was hung. […]

40. The Usual Suspect on January 3rd, 2007 3:16 am

    Raccoon
    Had to think about the eating the corpse thing for a while before I finally got it!
    Like I said, I haven’t watched it but I’m hearing a lot of comments from people about how strange it was and even how strange of the popular media to even broadcast the execution as they did. Makes me wonder about our humanity or loss of.

41. Global Voices Online » Blog Archive » Sudan: Saddam’s Good Side and Sexual Abuse by Peacekeepers on January 8th, 2007 12:26 pm

    […] We’ll first start with the reactions to Saddam Hussein’s execution. The Sudanese Thinker was delighted by the news while others like Daana Lost in Translation took the occasion to remind people of the good things Saddam did during his lifetime: […]

42. 全球之声-全球博客内容中文翻译版 » Blog Archive » 苏丹: 海珊也有好的一面与维和部队的性侵害丑闻 on January 10th, 2007 11:02 am

    […] 首先是人们对于海珊绞刑的反应，Sudanese Thinker很高兴听到这项消息，Daana Lost in Translation则藉此机会，提醒人们海珊在生前有何政绩善举： 以往从没有人说过，海珊其实积极推动伊拉克现代化，其中包括： […]

43. 全球之聲 » Blog Archive » 蘇丹: 海珊也有好的一面與維和部隊的性侵害醜聞 on January 14th, 2007 9:11 am

    […] 首先是人們對於海珊絞刑的反應，Sudanese Thinker很高興聽到這項消息，Daana Lost in Translation則藉此機會，提醒人們海珊在生前有何政績善舉： 以往從沒有人說過，海珊其實積極推動伊拉克現代化，其中包括： […]

44. FULL Video of Saddam’s Execution: Very Disturbing Yet Revealing : The Sudanese Thinker on November 2nd, 2007 1:14 pm

    […] execution was NOT pleasant. It was very freaky and my reaction to it was very different from the reaction I got watching the other video on TV. I was disturbed. The execution seemed like no act of justice at all. It was so […]

Leave a Reply