Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Saddam beaten up in court
#1
Iraqi TV: Court Workers Attacked Saddam

Quote:BAGHDAD, Iraq - Two court employees attacked Saddam Hussein and punched him several times after he cursed two Shiite Islam saints, state-run Iraqi television reported Wednesday....

Nice democracy we are building over there....The Court system seems to be almost functional, except for small glitches: a better would have been to shoot Saddam and beat up his lawyers. 8)
Government is necessary because people left unchecked will do evil.

The government is composed of people left unchecked


Reply
#2
mv Wrote:Iraqi TV: Court Workers Attacked Saddam

Quote:BAGHDAD, Iraq - Two court employees attacked Saddam Hussein and punched him several times after he cursed two Shiite Islam saints, state-run Iraqi television reported Wednesday....

Nice democracy we are building over there....The Court system seems to be almost functional, except for small glitches: a better would have been to shoot Saddam and beat up his lawyers. 8)

Wish they'd hit him harder and many times more. Considering the climate in which this happened, I think the court managed to curtial this pretty quickly. Too bad.
Solo~

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. --Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#3
mv Wrote:Iraqi TV: Court Workers Attacked Saddam

Quote:BAGHDAD, Iraq - Two court employees attacked Saddam Hussein and punched him several times after he cursed two Shiite Islam saints, state-run Iraqi television reported Wednesday....

Nice democracy we are building over there....The Court system seems to be almost functional, except for small glitches: a better would have been to shoot Saddam and beat up his lawyers. 8)

... to shoot his layers and beat up Saddam. It was perfect idea from the very begining - to build democracy in arab lands. Arab society must be traditional ... and isolated.
Reply
#4
SoloNav Wrote:Wish they'd hit him harder and many times more. Considering the climate in which this happened, I think the court managed to curtial this pretty quickly. Too bad.

Firstly, if we try to be objective, Saddam is no more guilty than any of the other fifty dictators which still do his act and sometimes worse.

All these Assads, Quadaffis, Mugabes, Musharrafs, Mubaraks and Arafat/Abbas' are no less deserving...

Secondly, what about Innocent until proven guilty?. Given the total failure of the Slobo trial, not only he has not been proven yet, but it is not clear he ever will be. (And parallels with the Slobo case are obvious).

Thirdly, the real reason Mr. Saddam was beaten up is his apparent lack of respect for some Shiati Saints...It appears that many people on AI Jane do not respect them either....are you suggesting that we all should be beaten up too?

The final item that should be upsetting is the obvious lack of organization shown by this incident... Neither Stalin nor Hitler resorted to beating the accussed in public in their show trials; asaik no accused was beaten up in Nuremberg either. Is the Iraq war run by total amateurs?
Government is necessary because people left unchecked will do evil.

The government is composed of people left unchecked


Reply
#5
The truth is Shiite Muslims are as irrational as Sunni Muslims,it's just that Sunnis picked a recent fight with us and I doubt there are many Iraqis who give a fig for innocent till proven guilty.

He's guilty in their paradigm as Hitler was his,a trial is to impress some people,but has nothing to do with reality.

He will be hung like Mussolini and giving him a trial does not make his hangman anymore or less righteous.
Reply
#6
May be, but do we need the show? Or is it an attempt to demonstrate that Arabs are big and responsible boys now? Or will be after the motions?
Reply
#7
mv Wrote:
SoloNav Wrote:Wish they'd hit him harder and many times more. Considering the climate in which this happened, I think the court managed to curtial this pretty quickly. Too bad.

Firstly, if we try to be objective, Saddam is no more guilty than any of the other fifty dictators which still do his act and sometimes worse.

All these Assads, Quadaffis, Mugabes, Musharrafs, Mubaraks and Arafat/Abbas' are no less deserving...

Secondly, what about Innocent until proven guilty?. Given the total failure of the Slobo trial, not only he has not been proven yet, but it is not clear he ever will be. (And parallels with the Slobo case are obvious).

Thirdly, the real reason Mr. Saddam was beaten up is his apparent lack of respect for some Shiati Saints...It appears that many people on AI Jane do not respect them either....are you suggesting that we all should be beaten up too?

The final item that should be upsetting is the obvious lack of organization shown by this incident... Neither Stalin nor Hitler resorted to beating the accussed in public in their show trials; asaik no accused was beaten up in Nuremberg either. Is the Iraq war run by total amateurs?

I still wish they'd hit him harder, whatever the reason. Sorry. It's my thinking, and I own it. You know he's as guilty as I do regardless of whether or not those that hit him are guilty. Doesn't change his guilt at all.
Solo~

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. --Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#8
mv, you're certainly correct that Saddam is innocent until proven guilty by our laws, and I think by the new courts in Iraq. Under Islamic Law, I think he could have been summarily declared guilty by the guards who hit him and punished appropriately. Many thieves lose hands that way. Rapists and sex offenders lose other body parts.

The difference between Milosevic and Hussein are great. Milosevic was accused of ethnic cleansing, and after years of testimony at the Hague - we find the only bodies found were those killed by the KLA - who he fought against in order to prevent the ethnic cleansing of Serbs. With Hussein, we see his own videos of torture and abuse, and have the bodies to prove his crimes. Realistically, it is only a matter of paperwork connecting the dots. In the Hague there are no dots to connect.
Reply
#9
(I hope nobody suspects me of liking Saddam)

Solonav Wrote:I still wish they'd hit him harder, whatever the reason. Sorry.

Of course, but there is a long like of other similar fellahs deserving to be kicked and harder. If you had a choice to kick one of two...whom would you kick: Saddam or something John F' Kerrish?

Incidentally, Saddam has been already punished. His line was killed, so no dynasty, like with Kims, Assads, and, likely, Mubaraks.

Wm: the difference is there, but it is not that essential. Slobo seems to be generally innocent of any serious stuff... but Saddam is only as guilty as many other dictators. Do you really think that he enjoyed watching torture videos any more than, for example, our old friend Assad Sr.? Do you really think that he is more of a terrorist than our Nobellian friend Arafat or our Newfound friend Quadaffi?

Selective application of law...perhaps worse than no law at all...

(And, btw, exactly which international law did he break when he tortured his Shiites? Was it the same law which Bubba broke when he cided his Branch Davidians?)
Government is necessary because people left unchecked will do evil.

The government is composed of people left unchecked


Reply
#10
No one suspects you of liking Saddam, don't be crazy.

I agree with MV, while Saddam is an anal wart, the rule of law here has to remain the standard.

Thats all I have to say, I guess.
Reply
#11
mv, per Saddam...

Yes, he was all that. The biographical videos I've seen - that date from before his notoriety - all say he was a psychopath of the worst order. He came to power as the most bloodthirsty of his mentor's bodyguards and assassinated all his mentor's opponents. He became the ascetic and idealistic Abdel Khaliq al-Samaraie's right-hand man, and had been with him since Abdel taught him math at high school. How did Saddam gain power for himself? That's right - he assassinated his mentor.

Then to solidify his power, he called an assembly of all the political leaders to Baghdad, where he called off a list of "traitors" who had been "caught" plotting against him, and had them frog-marched out of the assembly, and they were never seen again.

The rape rooms and torture cells are also not figments of imagination of an over-zealous International Court. They exist, and evidently Saddam enjoyed watching the abuse because of all the videos made.

As I said, the dots are there to be connected - but the culture is weird. Abdel Khaliq al-Samaraie's family is supportive of Saddam, even after his treachery.
Reply
#12
WmLambert Wrote:mv, per Saddam...

Yes, he was all that. The biographical videos I've seen - that date from before his notoriety - all say he was a psychopath of the worst order. He came to power as the most bloodthirsty of his mentor's bodyguards and assassinated all his mentor's opponents. He became the ascetic and idealistic Abdel Khaliq al-Samaraie's right-hand man, and had been with him since Abdel taught him math at high school. How did Saddam gain power for himself? That's right - he assassinated his mentor.

Then to solidify his power, he called an assembly of all the political leaders to Baghdad, where he called off a list of "traitors" who had been "caught" plotting against him, and had them frog-marched out of the assembly, and they were never seen again.

The rape rooms and torture cells are also not figments of imagination of an over-zealous International Court. They exist, and evidently Saddam enjoyed watching the abuse because of all the videos made.

As I said, the dots are there to be connected - but the culture is weird. Abdel Khaliq al-Samaraie's family is supportive of Saddam, even after his treachery.
Gunnen, of course, the rule of law has to be followed. I just would have liked him to be hit again. Doesn't mean that he should be lynched in the courtroom or anything.

Yes, Wm. I also saw the video of his marching out those men out of the assembly room after calling everyone in from all over the country for a meeting. You could tell as they left that they all knew their fate. It reminded me of that movie where the (Godfather?) went around his supper table after the meal he'd served them and shooting the guest(s) in the back of the head that he wanted to eliminate because he considered them to be an enemy. I believe Saddam's mentor was the first one to go outside and was shot, and then all the others were sent out. He is a psychopath.
Solo~

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. --Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#13
Wm

I am not denying that Saddam was a vicious SOB; of course he was. The perception that he was a uniquely bad SOB is, however, overblown: we all have read too many media stories, including some fakes (like the famous story about Saddam killing premature babies in Kuwait); Saddam was a very typical ruler. There are a plenty of others just like him, or worse.

Mr. Quadaffi, for example, messed up with airplanes. Sudanese rulers did engineer full-size genocide. Nelson Mandela, another Nobel winner, played with necklaces. Etc., etc.

Whatever Saddam did was mostly to his own people.

We really have no reasons to single him out.

To make it a bit easier for you, a simple question:

Who caused more damage to the US (or to the Humanity): Saddam Hussein or Bill Clinton?
Government is necessary because people left unchecked will do evil.

The government is composed of people left unchecked


Reply
#14
mv Wrote:Wm

I am not denying that Saddam was a vicious SOB; of course he was. The perception that he was a uniquely bad SOB is, however, overblown: we all have read too many media stories, including some fakes (like the famous story about Saddam killing premature babies in Kuwait); Saddam was a very typical ruler. There are a plenty of others just like him, or worse.

Mr. Quadaffi, for example, messed up with airplanes. Sudanese rulers did engineer full-size genocide. Nelson Mandela, another Nobel winner, played with necklaces. Etc., etc.

Whatever Saddam did was mostly to his own people.

We really have no reasons to single him out.

To make it a bit easier for you, a simple question:

Who caused more damage to the US (or to the Humanity): Saddam Hussein or Bill Clinton?

Pardon moi English, but that's like asking is which is better: Shytie or More Shytie. They are both Shyte.
Solo~

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. --Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#15
Solonav Wrote:Pardon moi English, but that's like asking is which is better: Shytie or More Shytie. They are both Shyte.

But of course, we do have two piles of Shyte here, no argument.

May I still ask which one is higher?
Government is necessary because people left unchecked will do evil.

The government is composed of people left unchecked


Reply
#16
mv Wrote:
Solonav Wrote:Pardon moi English, but that's like asking is which is better: Shytie or More Shytie. They are both Shyte.

But of course, we do have two piles of Shyte here, no argument.

May I still ask which one is higher?
Shyte is shyte any way you look, smell, taste it. [Image: shocking.gif]
Solo~

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. --Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#17
SoloNav Wrote:
mv Wrote:
Solonav Wrote:Pardon moi English, but that's like asking is which is better: Shytie or More Shytie. They are both Shyte.

But of course, we do have two piles of Shyte here, no argument.

May I still ask which one is higher?
Shyte is shyte any way you look, smell, taste it. [Image: shocking.gif]

Let me put it another way: Would you wanna be the coldest or hottest place in hell? [Image: shocking.gif]

Seriously, I think they both have harmed the U.S. One directly, and one indirectly. I'm sure SoDamnedInsane helped train and subsidize terrorists.
Solo~

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. --Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#18
Put into perspective, Saddam and Clinton both injured the U.S. in different ways. Had Clinton not used the Lippo bank and the Riady family to finance his various political campaigns, we wouldn't have sold our highest military secrets to the PRC, and he wouldn't have tarnished the office and soiled the honor of the country.

However, Clinton was impeached and replaced in office, hopefully to where he shouldn't be as prone to hurt us again.

Saddam encouraged and hosted terrorists and their camps, rewarding families of terrorist families, and giving safe haven to those who want to hurt us. He was the prime hope of bin Laden and his associate leaders as a catalyst to procure more terrorists. His desire to destroy Israel would have destabilized the whole area and most probably have launched WWIII. There was no set piece for his impeachment or duly constituted replacement in office. Comparing the immediate impact, Suddam was more dangerous to us.
Reply
#19
The U.S. government supports many dictators. We wen to Iraq four our own interests. Sorry to tell you, we didn't go to overthrow an evil dictator. There are so many dictators, as vicious as Saddam, in this world who we support.
Reply
#20
Anonymous24 Wrote:The U.S. government supports many dictators. We wen to Iraq four our own interests. Sorry to tell you, we didn't go to overthrow an evil dictator. There are so many dictators, as vicious as Saddam, in this world who we support.

Should we, perhaps, attack them all at once?
Solo~

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. --Thomas Jefferson
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)