Poll: Who is guiltier? Saddam for Kurds and Kuwait or Clinton for Waco and Serbia?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Saddam
0%
0 0%
Clinton
0%
0 0%
About the same
0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Saddam to escape death penalty?
#21
track,

You view al qaeda as removed from the Sunni culture and I think they are grown ,watered and cultivated from/by it.

Kamil,

The possibility certainly exists you are correct. I think there is still hope you aren't,but we would be naive to say it's isn't a possibility.
Reply
#22
Palladin Wrote:track,

You view al qaeda as removed from the Sunni culture and I think they are grown ,watered and cultivated from/by it.

Kamil,

The possibility certainly exists you are correct. I think there is still hope you aren't,but we would be naive to say it's isn't a possibility.
----------------------------------------------
Al Qaeda was grown and watered in Egypt. Later they turned their interest to Afghanistan supporting the mujaheddins against the Soviet-backed government. Usama Bin Laden was very active during this time and even got support from the US for that.

As Kamil writes, Sunni culture and Saddam was quite tolerant in religious views and never let the extreme islamists come forward.

The US policy towards Iraq and Saddam is a total mistake after 1990. This is very unfortunate, both for the world and for the US.

/track_snake
Reply
#23
track,

I'm not prepared to argue the efficacy of the Iraq invasion as it is increasingly seen by me to be an error.

I stated Sunni Muslims are the enemy of the USA and you took issue with it as if al qaeda is a seperate entity.

Al qaeda was grown from Sunni Muslim culture,Sunni Muslims almost monolithically support Bin laden over the USA and Sunni Muslims make it extremely difficult to locate him and his followers and easy to recruit new ones from it.

You say the Sunnis are seperate,that's like saying the Germans were seperate from the Nazis in WWII.
Reply
#24
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know if Iran planned or it just turned out this way, but looks like as a result of this war Iran is going to come out smelling like roses.
It appears to be they used USA to accomplish what they could not do themselves against Iraq.

US lost thousands of troops, spent over $700 Billion for the war effort, and looks like going to leave the area behind with extremist Imams in charge. At least Saddam was secular and did not tolerate any religious extremists to exist in Iraq.

I will be extremely happy if I'm wrong in my assessment of situation in Iraq.

All these things are true(except for Iran 'using' the U.S. - Bush and co. were hellbent on invading Iraq and Iran didn't have to do any real manipulation to get them to do it). However, did anyone stop to think that maybe a Shiite-dominated IRaq might not be aligned with Iran? The Iraqi Shiites are ARabs; the Iranians are Persians. This is a big cultural differece; and as Samuel Huntington pointed out, culture is increasingly becoming the basis for conflict. Furthermore, in the Iran-Iraq war Iraqi Shiites fought against Iranians.
Reply
#25
Palladin Wrote:track,

I'm not prepared to argue the efficacy of the Iraq invasion as it is increasingly seen by me to be an error.

I stated Sunni Muslims are the enemy of the USA and you took issue with it as if al qaeda is a seperate entity.

Al qaeda was grown from Sunni Muslim culture,Sunni Muslims monolithically support Bin laden over the USA and Sunni Muslims make it extremely difficult to locate him and his followers and easy to recruit new ones from it.

You say the Sunnis are seperate,that's like saying the Germans were seperate from the Nazis in WWII.

Wahabiis are Sunnis, but very few Sunnis are Wahabiis. Al Qaida originated from the Wahabiis.
Ottoman Empire and Egyptians (both Sunni Moslems) were the first nations to fight against Wahabiism in Saudii Arabia.
----------------------------------

Excerpts from: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...qaeda.html

Quote:* "Al Qaeda had a command and control structure which included a majlis al shura (or consultation council) which discussed and approved major undertakings, including terrorist operations." Both Atef and bin Laden sat on this council.

* Al Qaeda had ties to other "terrorist organizations that operated under its umbrella," including: the al Jihad group based in Egypt, the Islamic Group, formerly led by Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, and other jihad groups in other countries. "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in Sudan and with representatives of the government of Iran, and its associated terrorist group Hezballah, for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States."
-----------------------------
If it benefits Iran, they will not hesitate in funding Al Qaida.
Reply
#26
Kamil,

That's too simplistic. Are all the folks in Iraq wahabbis that hide al qaeda in Iraq members and feed them? How about in Algeria,why has the Algerian government had 15 years of grueling terrorism without succeeding in crushing the terrorists? Because lots of the locals help them,hide them,feed them,move eq for them,etc.

Why can't Pakistan crush out their radicals? Because the radicals find safety within the larger Sunni community. In fact,Saudi Arabia,home of wahabb,does a much more excellent job of crushing their terrs than most.

I know that most Sunnis are not terrs,but most Sunnis prefer bin laden prevails over the USA or any infidel entity. Religously,it is not within the Koran is it that an infidel power actually has more morality and justice than a Muslim power does it?

It is the "swamp effect" of Mao Tse Tung's theory of combat. Were most Chinese communists in 1949? Of course not,but most Chinese preferred or feared them enough to at worst keep quiet and at best assist them to take over China. That's how I see Muslims. Of course not all are terrs in even Iraq,but when they have to make hard choices,it must be near impossible to side with an infidel.

Ask any soldier who has been to Iraq or Afghanistan,when the KIDS are not to be seen playing,expect an ambush. Now,how the HE.LL are kids notified and never are our soldiers?

Because the vast majority of Sunni want to see our soldiers killed,THAT is what I am discussing. Not all are terrs,but almost all prefer the terrs succeed. It's the Sunni swamp that is our enemy,not just the boldest terrs.
Reply
#27
Palladin, if you were living somewhere in Algeria and heavily armed men came to your house asking for shelter, would you ask them to leave?

After staying at your house, if these terrorist took one of your family members as hostage, would you report them to authorities?

From PKK, I know how terrorists operate. PKK killed much more Kurds to get their cooperation than they harmed Turks in their region of operations.
Reply
#28
Kamil,

I'd be scared to death of course. However,when all the kids on my block are scared and flee inside and we have cell phones,I could easily call an 800 # and notify an authority of an ambush.

That is possible in Iraq and it has happened,but not much. There is more than fear involved Kamil. There is affinity. What the terrorists say resonates with lots of Arabic Muslims. Maybe not with you or the Turk Muslim,but with Pakistani,Arabs,yes.

The Kurds are a very good example. In Turkey,not all Kurds are terrs or PKK,but probably 90% SUPPORT them with food,logistics,silence,haven,etc. That's why Turkey cannot crush them out. The Turk Army is vastly superior,but the Turks like us Americans do not gather enough INFO to know where the terr is before he acts. Some of the silence is fear for sure,but not all.
Reply
#29
Palladin, in most parts of Africa, they have one cell phone in each hamlet. People calling somebody, tells the name of the person they are trying to reach then owner of the phone ask them to call back in 10 minutes and he rushes out to locate that person. I think the owners of these cell phones are called "running telephone booths".
Reply
#30
Kamil,

We're talking about Iraq though. It is flooded with cell phones.

Look,don't get me wrong,I realize the fear factor. I attribute lots to that,but it seems reasonable that say Zarqawi could hide for years among the Sunni but could NOT have among the Shia for example.

The answer to WHY is what I am talking about. Shia can be scared ,too ya know. Kurd PKK are more likely to be found among Turks than among their own Kurds as well,same difference.

Part of the problem is the officials of the Iraqi Gov. are mostly Shia,I realize that as well.
Reply
#31
MSNBC: to be hanged within 48 hours

All of Iran rejoices. UN, Italy object.

[Image: Saddam_Noose.gif]
Government is necessary because people left unchecked will do evil.

The government is composed of people left unchecked


Reply
#32
Get dorritos ready, get your M&Ms, Lays, Pepsi, Coke, Beer, Pizza, Confetti, no Duke Lacrosse stripper please, chocolate cake, vanilla cake, Apple pie, cherry pie, pecan pie, music ready. Saddam is going to join his 73 transvestite virgins in Hell with Satan, the God of the terrocrat party.

\S2/ =D> :-({|=
Reply
#33
Whether we like it or not, Sunnis of Iraq are still faithfull to Saddam, even though he was never seen inside a mosque during his rulling.

If the Iraqi leader was a Shia, Shias would have been hiding the terrorists who appear to be on the deposed leader's side.

If leader was Tarik Aziz, probably Christians would have been supporting the terrorists.

They don't see these terrorists as we see them, for them they are fighters who support their tribal leader.

Royalty is pretty big thing in most of the Middle East, for example when corrupt Democratic Party of Turkey was disposed of by the military in 1960, they had to ban any party from adopting that name. Otherwise some people would have voted for the Democratic Party just because of the name.
Reply
#34
Kamil Wrote:when corrupt Democratic Party of Turkey was disposed of by the military in 1960, they had to ban any party from adopting that name. Otherwise some people would have voted for the Democratic Party just because of the name.

Just like here....perhaps we need the same reform.
Wink1
Government is necessary because people left unchecked will do evil.

The government is composed of people left unchecked


Reply
#35
mv Wrote:
Kamil Wrote:when corrupt Democratic Party of Turkey was disposed of by the military in 1960, they had to ban any party from adopting that name. Otherwise some people would have voted for the Democratic Party just because of the name.

Just like here....perhaps we need the same reform.
Wink1

Excellent Idea! Or how about this: change the Party's name from "Democrat" to "Jackass", and then let's see how many votes they get. :lol:
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#36
You guys seem to be forgetting the fact that the number one reason Republican candidates lost last election was because the word "Republican" was next to their name on the voting ballots. Perhaps Republicans are the ones who should change the name of their party :lol:

(This is not exaggeration, either - for instance, literally the only reason Lincoln Chafee, who agreed with his opponent on most issues and was an early and steady critic of Bush and the invasion of Iraq, lost was because he was a Republican. This was repeated all over the nation, where Republicans agreed with their opponents on most issues and had done their best to criticize Bush and war, yet still lost, because they were Republicans).
Reply
#37
Anonymous24 Wrote:You guys seem to be forgetting the fact that the number one reason Republican candidates lost last election was because the word "Republican" was next to their name on the voting ballots. Perhaps Republicans are the ones who should change the name of their party :lol:

(This is not exaggeration, either - for instance, literally the only reason Lincoln Chafee, who agreed with his opponent on most issues and was an early and steady critic of Bush and the invasion of Iraq, lost was because he was a Republican. This was repeated all over the nation, where Republicans agreed with their opponents on most issues and had done their best to criticize Bush and war, yet still lost, because they were Republicans).

Correct! It should be "Stupid & Gutless".
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#38
Independents4Bush Wrote:Get dorritos ready, get your M&Ms, Lays, Pepsi, Coke, Beer, Pizza, Confetti, no Duke Lacrosse stripper please, chocolate cake, vanilla cake, Apple pie, cherry pie, pecan pie, music ready.

[Image: anim_applause-vi.gif]
Government is necessary because people left unchecked will do evil.

The government is composed of people left unchecked


Reply
#39
Kamil Wrote:Whether we like it or not, Sunnis of Iraq are still faithfull to Saddam, even though he was never seen inside a mosque during his rulling.

If the Iraqi leader was a Shia, Shias would have been hiding the terrorists who appear to be on the deposed leader's side.

If leader was Tarik Aziz, probably Christians would have been supporting the terrorists.

They don't see these terrorists as we see them, for them they are fighters who support their tribal leader.

Royalty is pretty big thing in most of the Middle East, for example when corrupt Democratic Party of Turkey was disposed of by the military in 1960, they had to ban any party from adopting that name. Otherwise some people would have voted for the Democratic Party just because of the name.
--------------------------
Yes, Palladin and others. It is as simple as that.

But my statement was that it was a strategic mistake by the US to confront Saddam. If the purpose was to gain more influence in teh Arab world the US should have stayed with the police applied during the early 1980-ies when Saddam still was considered a strategic ally in the region.

Of course that is too late as the situation is now. Now we have to face the chaotic situation in Iraq going on for at least the foreseeable future. And Iran is gaining strength in the region. Remember that Iran was the traditional enemy of Iraq, but now with the support of the shia muslims in Iraq friendly ties are developing between Iraq and Iran.

The US policy towards Iraq is a mistake from the beginning to the end. Instead of entering the Gulf War, the US should try diplomatic efforts to get Kuwait and Iraq to solve the situation peacefully. Remember that Iraq's claim then that Kuwait was the 19th province of Iraq was historically correct.

/track_snake
Reply
#40
According to CNN Saddam has been handed over to Iraqi authorities.
According to the most sources this start the execution process, and also signals for start of increased violance.
----------
Hussein handed over to Iraqis
Lawyers representing Saddam Hussein have told CNN that they have been informed by U.S. officials that the former Iraqi leader is longer in U.S. military custody. The handover to Iraqis is considered a final step before Hussein's execution. Other news agencies quote officials as saying Hussein could be executed by Saturday.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Belgium restores death penalty mv 18 6,435 01-05-2015, 08:38 PM
Last Post: Fredledingue
  tariq aziz handed death penalty quadrat 6 2,635 10-30-2010, 09:55 AM
Last Post: Palladin
  Uganda: death penalty for gays mv 11 2,705 12-12-2009, 02:18 PM
Last Post: Palladin

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)