Contrasted Views on Saddam's Execution, Iraq Invasion and Islam

[M.R.]

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

Nothing personal. All murderers have to be hung. Without exception.

I have to agree with Aptrgangr here, he was a murderer and there was nothing injust when they hung him.

[Errigal]

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

Please elaborate. What will be more dangerous for us? The immigrant influx won't grow just because he is dead now.

All evidence goes against you on this argument, I cannot think of a civil war in history which has not created refugees. France got czarist Russians, Spanish socialists, Algerian harkis and the members various losing regimes from Vietnam to West Africa; and that was only in the 20th Century. Even the American Civil War made refugees from the Confederacy who settled in Brazil.



If you want fewer Muslims at the local market, you should want stability in the Muslim world, and acts like the execution of Saddam do not bring stability.

[Menydh]

Aptrgangr, you say that you oppose globalisation but you apply here one of the most basic principles upon which globalisation is built. Judging an event and a person from a much different culture on the grounds of your own culture.

Have you bothered with looking at how Arab and Middle East culture is? Saddam wasn't strange to it by any stretch of imagination. In fact he was more of a classic example than anything else.

But no, you insist in judging him with your western mind.

Do not complain when Islamics demand that women in Europe cover themselves with a jihab to avoid provoking men and being raped. You will have lost all right to complain because by judging them by your standards, you are giving them the right to do the same.

You demand that they abide to your view of society and they demand that you abide to theirs. How are you different from each other? You are not.

If Saddam's nationalism looked to you as tribalistic, have you stopped at thinking that tribalism is a characteristic of the Arab identity? Or do you support a globalist view of nationalism whereby all the ethnic/national identities of the world should conform to a western standard?

He was an assassin? What do you know how life is in those countries? So far, since the invasion of Iraq, there have been far more killings than there was during the decades of Saddam's dictatorship. And, do you honestly expect Iraq to become a democratic [western] country in the future? Forget it. Bloodsheds will go on and on because Americans have deprived Iraq of the only possible form of government to keep order there, one where nationalism is defined under the Arab identity which requires that one tribal group rules above the others.

And we have not looked at the reasons why Iraq was invaded.

Allegedly, it was a fight against Islamism. Yet Islamic fundamentalism was persecuted under Saddam's arab-[tribalist-]nationalist regime. You give good evidence of it: "Osama Bin-Laden offered the Americans a volunteer unit to kill Saddam Hussein."

Yes, and Saddam too waged a war against the Islamic fundamentalist regime of the ayatolahs in Iran.

What do you expect the Middle East to become if they have been denied their only way out from Islamic Teocracies? Democracies?

Yes, Saddam may have gone to pray to Mecca.. so what? For God's sake! How does that prove anything against him? Sunnis are Muslims and Mecca is their holy city!!!

Yesterday, three groups of fundamentalists celebrated the execution of Saddam: Iranian Shi'ite fundamentalists, Iraqi Shi'ite fundamentalists and Western fundamentalist (aka America).

So, if he did not support Islamic fundamentalism, why was Iraq invaded? Why Iraq and not other countries with other black listed regimes?

Maybe for the control of the most important energy supply, petrol? And, how much more blood will be spilled for the petrol? And you dare to call Saddam Hussein a murderer?



p.s. by the way, I still have to hear you demanding that US political and military leaders be sentenced to death for all the rapes and assassinations committed by the "soldiers" that they have sent and commanded, not only in Iraq.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

Nothing personal. All murderers have to be hung. Without exception.

It is an effect of multiculturalism and globalisation that different cultures are subjugated and then judged under the western [fundamentalist] standards.

No matter that the alternative to a strong regime in an Arab country, be tribal chaos and bloodsheds or Islamic fundamentalism.

Right?

And, by the same rule of thumb, any attempt in any country in Europe to a nationalist government should be put down by force if needed.

Right?

Did you watch the video who hung him? It were Sadr's men - Shiites- anything but friends of the Americans.

Exacto!

The Americans are so retarded that they have unleashed the Islamists in Iraq. Or maybe they are not that retarded and their agenda is to have half of the world under Islamic fundamentalist control to provoke a full scale world war? Still retarded, apart from utterly criminal.

Getting away nationalists from Commie-style whining over some retarded murderers having been hung.

I see where you are confused and why.

I see even Conservative people here saying that it has been a terrible mistake and unjust.

Fencing

Fencing? Surely it must mean something different to what I'm thinking..

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

Why is it a horrible idea to hang murderes? We should start doing it overhere as well.

It is not. But I will expect you to justify the many murders which will happen in Iraq after their deprivement of Saddam's regime and the order that it provided, even through tough measures.

Irresponsibility, when the peace and lives of so many people are at a stake, is a crime.

Please elaborate. What will be more dangeous for us? The immigrant influx won't grow just because he is dead now.

Support to Islamism will. Ba'athists and other non fundamentalist Muslims will realize that there is no option for them but radical Islamism.

Further, it is a support for a globalised vision of the world not just in the Middle East, but in Europe too. From the moment that one country starts a expulsion/deportation of its non-ethnic citizens, that country becomes fair game for an invasion and its leaders can be trialed for crimes against humanity. Congratulations!

Yes - especially the leftist-liberal do-gooders whine about this barbaric act.

Saddam was no saint of devotion for left-liberals. That's utter nonesense. Left-liberals are also western fundamentalists and they have cheered Saddam's execution.

What will become nastier?

The numbers of dead have long surpassed those during Saddam's regime in just a few years. And it keeps growing. It won't become nastier, it is already nastier. It will just keep growing nastier.

At least Iraq won't become secular anymore since the Shiite majority has different plans...Bush looses.

So you prefer the radical islamicisation of Iraq, no matter what the consequences for Iraqis and the world?

Would you support the same idea in Germany?

Originally Posted by Franjo Malgaj

I have to agree with Aptrgangr here, he was a murderer and there was nothing injust when they hung him.

See this post and the previous. We cannot be as naïve as to believe that Iraq would have been or will be a paradise without Saddam. Rather the opposite. Not to mention the side effects of Islamist growth power.

[wilpuri]

Did anyone else notice the similarities between this video and those released by the islamists, where they behead westerners?

[Theobald]

Well, Mynydd took the words right out of my mouth...
So I will just add Le Pen's reaction to Saddam's hanging :

Originally Posted by Jean-Marie Le Pen

L'exécution de Saddam Hussein est une nouvelle navrante...
(...)
Le président Saddam Hussein n'était pas un gangster, un braqueur de banque ou un voleur de poules : c'était un chef d'Etat - renversé par l'intervention d'une armée étrangère.
(...)
Son jugement par un tribunal d'exception, sa condamnation, visent sans doute à éliminer le chef de l'Etat avec lequel l'Occident a traité pendant des années. N'est-ce pas Jacques "Ch'Irak" qui lui a vendu pour 120 ou 130 milliards d'armement ?
(...)
Le fait qu'on le condamne sur un incident - certes douloureux puisqu'il y a eu 120 personnes tuées - au lieu de mettre en cause l'essentiel des actions de son gouvernement, prouve qu'il s'agit là d'une basse manoeuvre politique et par conséquent d'un véritable crime.
(...)
La situation de l'Irak sous Saddam Hussein était très supérieure
à ce qu'elle est devenue.

Originally Posted by Jean-Marie Le Pen

Saddam Hussein's hanging is a sad, disturbing news...
(...)
The President Saddam Hussein was not a gangster, not a holdup man, he did not steal hens : he was a chief of state - deposed by a foreign military intervention.
(...)
This trial, his judgment, probably aim to make disappear a chief of state who had been a friend of most Western powers for years. Didn't Jacques "Ch'Irak" sell 120 or 130 billions of weapons to Saddam?
(...)
The fact that he is sentenced to death for one single event - though painful because 120 men and women died - instead of being judged for all his government actions, is a proof that that trial is only a low political operation, therefore a real crime.
(...)
Iraqi situation under Saddam Hussein was far superior to what it has become [under the Americans].

[Errigal]

I see Saddam's hanging as the last step in the elimination of Iraq as a state which can threaten Israel. The only “crime against humanity” the people in Washington cared about was the financial support Saddam gave to Palestinian families punished by Israelis and the Scud missiles he fired at them during the Gulf War. These were crimes which could never be forgiven.

The world’s public may be told the goal is to bring democracy to the Muslim world but I think the goal is much simpler. In order to make Israel secure, the faction dominating the United States want the Middle East to be like sub-Saharan Africa with nothing but rival warlords from Jordan to the Indian border. The same way the old regime in South Africa had no serious military rival, Israel’s colonists want to sit on the Mediterranean coast with no real threat at their back. Saddam’s killing is very much part of that plan.

[Chauntecleer]

He died quite an undignified death. I guess the Americans paid these Shi'ite chumps to execute him in their stead, so as not to appear the occupiers (though apparently not enough to avoid the Islamic shit-chanting). I didn't agree with his leadership, nor am I upset to see him die, but I do think it was the wrong move. He'll now be venerated as a martyr by the Sunni muslims, and his death will be seen as symbolic of the Shi'ite take-over of Iraq. This could potentially lead to a civil war.

Originally Posted by Waarnemer

what is unjust about it?

There's no doubt in my mind that he deserved to die. The Americans, however, should not have been the ones who decided that. They accused him of 'crimes against humanity' and set up a joke court to make it appear as though he was given a fair trial. Anyway... "judge not lest ye be judged yourself" and all that bollocks. The Americans were in no position to accuse him of such things, that's what makes it a little 'unjust'.

[Galaico]

I don't feel sorry for Saddam, he was a mass murderer and a lunatic. But on the other hand he acted as a barrier against the expansion of Islamism. So, he was a murderer, but Al-Qaeda is even worse, and now you have them all over the place killing innocent civilians in Iraq.

It's like who do you support in Palestine, Al-Fatah or Hamas? Hamas helps poor families and founds schools, they also comit suicide attacks, but the same way Al-Aqsa Martyrs (Al-Fatah) do. Al-Fatah has been ruling in the non-occupied parts of Palestine for years, they are a band of corrupt stealers with no moral. So, being a Palestinian, the answer would be easy, but being a European we must look at their objectives, Al-Fatah is nationalist and wants a freed state within Palestine's borders, Hamas is Islamist and wants Islam to rule the whole world.

The same thing can be applied to Iraq.

[Errigal]

Originally Posted by Galaico

It's like who do you support in Palestine, Al-Fatah or Hamas? Hamas helps poor families and founds schools, they also comit suicide attacks, but the same way Al-Aqsa Martyrs (Al-Fatah) do. Al-Fatah has been ruling in the non-occupied parts of Palestine for years, they are a band of corrupt stealers with no moral. So, being a Palestinian, the answer would be easy, but being a European we must look at their objectives, Al-Fatah is nationalist and wants a freed state within Palestine's borders, Hamas is Islamist and wants Islam to rule the whole world.

The same thing can be applied to Iraq.

Yes, but to be fair to the Palestinians, they have been treated so badly by the Israelis that one can view the West Bank and Gaza as two giant prisons in which the prisoners have to govern themselves. Like some prisons in South America in which the guards only enter in force to grab someone or tear down some structure built by the prisoners, but the rest of the time it is the law of the jungle. Not even the peaceful Swiss could govern themselves properly under those conditions.

[Menydh]

Some quick facts that shouldn't be ignored.

According to a research report from the medical paper The Lancet, the toll of deaths in Iraq since the start of the invasion until the date of release of that report (October 2006) was of 601,000.

Controversial as the report may be, The Lancet is one of the most reputed medical journals.

Report puts Iraqi death toll at 600,000


The blood for oil policy of America is not news to anyone:

Drugs, Oil and War


Should not be forgotten who has been Saddam's allied before it was decided that he should go:

How the CIA put Saddam's Party in Power

Nor some of the forseeable consequences of this war:

Iraq Conflict Feeds International Terror Threat
Iraq - Shi'ite Victory on the Polls


Last, but no least, the accusations of Saddam's persecution against Muslim Shi'ites reminded me that some people who visited Iraq a couple of decades reported that both Christians and Jews under Saddam's Iraq were free and treated well.

I've done a quick search on this and found this news from just a couple of days ago. Apparently this is no longer the case:

Christians flee post-Saddam Iraq

[Aptrgangr]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Aptrgangr, you say that you oppose globalisation but you apply here one of the most basic principles upon which globalisation is built. Judging an event and a person from a much different culture on the grounds of your own culture.

So Islam does not allow hanging murderers?

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Have you bothered with looking at how Arab and Middle East culture is? Saddam wasn't strange to it by any stretch of imagination. In fact he was more of a classic example than anything else.

The point is he was a murderer and criminal and hung for that. Other dictators in Egypt etc. would face the same fate would they not have a strong military suppressing the opposition forces.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

But no, you insist in judging him with your western mind.

No. Murder is punishable with capital punishment everywhere except in liberal Western democracies.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Do not complain when Islamics demand that women in Europe cover themselves with a jihab to avoid provoking men and being raped. You will have lost all right to complain because by judging them by your standards, you are giving them the right to do the same.

I do give them the right to do what? You should have a closer look at the happenings, rapture is allowed in Islamic culture but not in Western democracies but hardly is punished when carried out by Muslim foreigners in particular.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

You demand that they abide to your view of society and they demand that you abide to theirs. How are you different from each other? You are not.

I do what? Your suggestions are strange. I never said "we" should establish any form of Western democracy there - they are masters of fraud and corrupt governing - the last thing they need are "our" advices to ruin people and state.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

If Saddam's nationalism looked to you as tribalistic, have you stopped at thinking that tribalism is a characteristic of the Arab identity?

Of course tribalism is characteristic for the Arabs. That's why Baathism - a Western construct that failed in Arabia like all Western constructs thusfar - is unnatural and foreign for them. Like secularism.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Or do you support a globalist view of nationalism whereby all the ethnic/national identities of the world should conform to a western standard?

Your thinking is caught in an infinite loop. I despise this liberal "Western standard". But this does not make me love murderers and rapists.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

He was an assassin? What do you know how life is in those countries? So far, since the invasion of Iraq, there have been far more killings than there was during the decades of Saddam's dictatorship.

Is is yet to be confirmed the death toll is higher. For me someone murdering 7 people is not less scum than someone killing 8.
It's not the invader's fault Sunni Arabs throw bombs in Shiah mosques and market places.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

And, do you honestly expect Iraq to become a democratic [western] country in the future?

That's the last thing I expect. They will become a theocracy since Islam does not allow any secularism - it is likely other Arab nations will follow.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Forget it.

Since I never thought about that I easily forget it - no worries.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Bloodsheds will go on and on because Americans have deprived Iraq of the only possible form of government to keep order there, one where nationalism is defined under the Arab identity which requires that one tribal group rules above the others.

And there has no bloodshed been before? All the massgraves are faked? Not nationalism but the Islamic identity will become the major ruling aspect there. The breakdown of Saddam Hussein's regime just was a question of time.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

And we have not looked at the reasons why Iraq was invaded.

Allegedly, it was a fight against Islamism. Yet Islamic fundamentalism was persecuted under Saddam's arab-[tribalist-]nationalist regime. You give good evidence of it: "Osama Bin-Laden offered the Americans a volunteer unit to kill Saddam Hussein."

Saddam Hussein started his career as atheistic leader and ended up as pretending Muslim. Nevertheless there were many attempts to assasinate him.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Yes, and Saddam too waged a war against the Islamic fundamentalist regime of the ayatolahs in Iran.

But not for religious reasons. He wanted to liberate the Arabs living under Iranian rule and to enlarge his influence in the Arab world. Remember - he saw himself as the new Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, later he pretended to be a new Saladin, after he detected the Islamic cards in his political poker deck.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

What do you expect the Middle East to become if they have been denied their only way out from Islamic Teocracies? Democracies?

They are not in the way out but in the way in theocracies. All this just begun. All imported systems of governing failed thusfar.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Yes, Saddam may have gone to pray to Mecca.. so what? For God's sake! How does that prove anything against him? Sunnis are Muslims and Mecca is their holy city!!!

He was an Atheist pretending to be a Muslim. He did thid for political reasons. He even prayed at Shiah shrines - without earning respect from them.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Yesterday, three groups of fundamentalists celebrated the execution of Saddam: Iranian Shi'ite fundamentalists, Iraqi Shi'ite fundamentalists and Western fundamentalist (aka America).

Al-Sadr's father - a well known Shiite cleric, was murdered by Saddam Hussein. No wonder the Shiites celebrate.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

So, if he did not support Islamic fundamentalism, why was Iraq invaded? Why Iraq and not other countries with other black listed regimes?

He was invaded to bring security for Israel and introduce Western democracy.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Maybe for the control of the most important energy supply, petrol? And, how much more blood will be spilled for the petrol?

To control petrol no invasion is needed. You also do not need to invade Chile to control the Copper deposits. Your way of thinking remained in obsolete Communist theories.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

And you dare to call Saddam Hussein a murderer?

Indeed - just because he was one.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

p.s. by the way, I still have to hear you demanding that US political and military leaders be sentenced to death for all the rapes and assassinations committed by the "soldiers" that they have sent and commanded, not only in Iraq.

Since you are no illiterate I friendly ask you to read my posts befor making such statements. I quote myself:

All murderers have to be hung. Without exception.

Contrasted Views on Saddam's Execution, Iraq Invasion and Islam

Originally Posted by A Fist Full of Snow

All evidence goes against you on this argument,

Oh really?

Originally Posted by A Fist Full of Snow

I cannot think of a civil war in history which has not created refugees. France got czarist Russians, Spanish socialists, Algerian harkis and the members various losing regimes from Vietnam to West Africa; and that was only in the 20th Century. Even the American Civil War made refugees from the Confederacy who settled in Brazil.

If there wasn't this "Open sesame" policy all this would be no problem.

Originally Posted by A Fist Full of Snow

If you want fewer Muslims at the local market, you should want stability in the Muslim world, and acts like the execution of Saddam do not bring stability.

It's not the amount of Muslims. Noone has the right to come here. Executing Saddam Hussein brings justice, that's the point. I am curios when you start to tell me it's the American's fault there is a civil war going on in Iraq...