Saddam - The Sacrificial Lion

Stray agent Saddam had to be terminated by the masters. Why so much fuss over disposal of a used condom? On eid the gutters are anyways filled with blood and refuse....

A friend of mine sed that saddam was the ``sacrificial goat``, citing the fact that he was hanged deliberately near eid-ul-adha.

Footnote: She (Queen of Sheba) said, ’When kings enter a city, they lay waste to it and make its mightiest inhabitants the most abased. That is what they too will do.’ (Al-Quran 27:34)

Just noticed the footnote. Thanks. How true it is.

Some commentators have said that the taunting was staged and filmed deliberately by the Americans to make Saddam break down in his last moments, to show him as a coward in the end. There is no other way the cellphone video ended up on all major networks within an hour of the execution.

If that is true, how wrong they were. Saddam went down in the same manner glaring at his tormentors and taunting them back as he had done at the judges and witnesses during his trial, and saying the same things he had been saying all along e.g. Palestine belongs to Arabs. Whatever Saddam was, he was certainly a Mard-e-Momin in courage.

On an aside, the execution of 148 Shias in Al-Dujail had been carried out after a court trial, and witness testimonies, just as was Saddam`s execution. Were both kangaroo courts? Or just one of the two? If yes, which one?

Cheers.

what bruhaha..we will all forget saddam in another five posts ;-)

Re: # 193

Who the heck is ``ashria roy``?

Re: # 188

3 lines or less plz.

Jokes (especially from you) 2 lines or less. Thanks

Re: # 191

I fail to see the ``conspiracy`` part in your abridged version. Any idiot with IQ equal to the girth of ashria roy (in cms) knows this.

Re: # 180 soycause

There is a a litmus test. Ask yourself this question:

``From what source did I hear about Siastani`s approval for murder of Sadam on Eid day?``

#186 by Urstruly on January 3, 2007 12:01pm PT

ok..the paki version of it: The plan is to get an arab shia state setup in the ME as a dagger pointed to the hearts of the saudis...and the whole iraqi shia taking marching orders from iran is overblown..

of course, there`s always the Michael Savage theory..he was executed ASAP because people didn`t want him spilling secrets about his dealings with US/EU politicians...

haha...come on! President Musharraf must wish he could sleep as carefree! :)

#187 kaalchakra: they have the same job description as president musharraf then. :-)

Urstruly: I think you are slowing down in your old age. You need to come up with some exciting new models for your conspiracy theories. Otherwise Masadi will grab the market as surely as Toyota beat Ford.

Here is some brainstorming to get you started:

1. 9/11 planes were piloted by little green men from a planet far, far away. The green color confused everyone and they thought it was muslims. Camp Gitmo is a secret CIA rocket launching station used to track incoming space aliens.

2. Saddam Hussein lives. The guy they pulled out of the spider hole was one of those Saddam lookalikes that he used to have to confuse would-be assassins. The real Saddam runs a casino in fallujah right under the nose of the Iraqi government.

3. Saddam never existed. He is a creation of the CIA. After all, how could simple arabs be expected to create all those huge Saddam statues? (this would of course be along the same lines as the ``argument`` presented by 9/11 conspiracy theorists that no muslim could be expected to have the skill necessary to fly a plane into a building, and would have missed it by a mile.

4. The Saddam in that video was actually a hollywood actor, since no proud arab would go to his death wearing a western-style coat.

Of course, the above dont compare with the feats of imagination expected from a PhD (Conspiracy Theories) like yourself...

tahemd32

Most of them already have a job - leading an easy life and fooling the world full time.

Re: # 184

Thank you - but no thanks. Unfortunately my attention span can only accomodate those conspiracy theories that take 3 lines or less to describe.

#182 kaalchakra: these guru boys dont need entymology. they need a bath, a haircut and a job.

#173 by Urstruly on January 3, 2007 10:33am PT

If you`re into conspiracy theories(which you clearly are), you`ll enjoy this one...

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10253

Mission Accomplished
The War Party meant to destroy Iraq – and so they did
by Justin Raimondo
Arnaud de Borchgrave – a conservative Washington Times columnist, but no neocon – recently had this to say about our president`s future course in Iraq:

``Some political soothsayers in Washington predict Mr. Bush is limbering up for the biggest U-turn in his political life. Think again. The French have an expression for what will probably come next – `La fuite en avant.` The literal translation doesn`t hack it. Loosely interpreted, it means evading an issue with a headlong rush somewhere else.``

Rather than listening to the Baker-Hamilton commission, the petulant frat boy who imagines himself Winston Churchill at the height of World War II is far more likely to pay attention to the recommendations of another report, this one prepared by the Two Chucks – Gen. Chuck Wald, former EUCOM commander, and Chuck Vollmer, president of VII, Inc., a Pentagon contractor – that paves the way for la fuite en avant times 10. ``Rather than planning withdrawal from Iraq,`` says the Wald-Vollmer paper,

``With the entry of Iran into the equation,the next phases of Operation Iraqi Freedom could possibly include … a major invasion of Iran and pro-Iranian forces against Western forces in the region and Israel, and/or a global energy crisis. We may be better served to plan for repositioning in this strategically important region. While withdrawal may be necessary in Iraq, withdrawal from the region would precipitate a global balance-of-power shift toward the Iran-Russia-China axis, which would be very detrimental for the energy dependent West.``

An attack on Iran by the U.S. has been widely predicted – Tony Blankley gave voice to this growing certainty in Washington on the New Year`s edition of The McLaughlin Group – but an invasion? The usual scenario is a series of bombing raids targeting Iran`s alleged nuclear weapons facilities, but almost no one has suggested putting American ``boots on the ground`` in Iran, not even Mad John McCain, for whom the phrase has become a rhetorical signature.

Yet it is difficult to imagine that there won`t be extensive ground fighting if and when we exercise a military option against Iran. After all, Iraq, which shares a long border with Iran, has some 130,000 American troops on its soil. They will hardly be immune to attack: indeed, it will be open season on them in Iraq, with pro-Iranian Shi`ites uniting in anger with Sunnis to target the country`s ``liberators.``

In any case, the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq may come sooner than any of us now believe possible – if we take seriously the possibility that American soldiers will soon be fighting in Iran. This is what they mean by ``phased redeployment`` somewhere ``over the horizon.``

We keep hearing from Democratic critics of the war that the Bush administration has ``failed,`` because we can`t keep order in Baghdad and the Iranians are in a position of unparalleled influence not only in Iraq but throughout the region. Yet this evaluation is based on a series of remarkably naïve assumptions, all of which have been proven utterly wrong.

The announced war aim of the Bush administration was to rid Saddam of his alleged ``weapons of mass destruction,`` and when the WMD myth was finally and definitively debunked, they told us we were there to install a functioning democracy. That didn`t pan out, either – unless one considers Shi`ite death squads, and a campaign of ethnic cleansing that puts the one supposedly initiated by Slobodan Milosevic to shame, legitimate expressions of the demos.

America`s real war aims are another matter entirely, and they are coming into focus as the situation on the ground develops. After all, why assume that what is currently happening in Iraq isn`t part of the program? Surely the Americans knew the dismemberment of the Iraqi state would have to mean Shi`ite hegemony, an empowered Iran, and the prospect of a regionalized conflagration. It defies belief that they didn`t: our rulers may be evil, but they sure as heck aren`t stupid (and I`m not talking about the president, who is a genuine dolt).

We have every reason to believe that the death and decomposition of the Iraqi state is precisely what they had in mind when they decided to invade in the first place. Furthermore, a civil war had to be the outcome of a sudden vacuum of legitimacy, and it was bound to be a religious conflict, pitting Sunnis against Shi`ites. Looked at in a larger context, it makes perfect sense that the War Party is now playing the ``Shi`ite card,`` as the visit of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim to Washington indicates. Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), met with the president, chatted with Condi, and took a tour of the Pentagon. If we`re looking for the true origins of the ``surge`` strategy in Iraq – the prospect of adding some 30,000 troops to ``stabilize`` Baghdad and rebel provinces – we need look no further than Hakim`s Dec. 4 speech [.pdf] to the U.S. Institute of Peace:

``We believe that the deterring factors are not up to the level of their criminal activities. The strikes they are getting from the multinational forces are not hard enough to put an end to their acts, but leave them stand up again to resume their criminal acts. This means that there is something wrong in the policies taken to deal with that danger threatening the lives of the Iraqis. Eliminating the danger of the Civil War in Iraq could only be achieved through directing decisive strikes against terrorist Bathists terrorists [sic] in Iraq. Otherwise we`ll continue to witness massacres being committed every now and then against the innocent Iraqis.``

Translation: Help us to finally smash the Sunnis by sending more troops. That this is about to happen is all but certain, in spite of noises coming from the Democratic peanut gallery. It`s all part of the administration`s grand strategy – or, rather, the neocons` strategy, which is one and the same thing – and it`s not like this has been any great secret. Writing in the Wall Street Journal two full years ago, neocon tactician and retired spook Reuel Marc Gerecht showed the War Party`s hand:

``In Iraq, the U.S. ought to have two obvious goals. To crush the Sunni insurgency before it can provoke the birth of an exclusive, angry Shi`ite political identity willing to do to the Arab Sunnis what the Ba`ath once did to the Shia. If such an identity is born, it is most unlikely democracy can prevail. Washington must thus ensure that the democratic process in Iraq, regardless of the violence, keeps on rolling. As long as it does, clerical Iran will not be able to gain much traction inside the country. SCIRI, the Da`wa, and the Sadriyyin are not puppets controlled by Tehran; the rising power of southern Iraq`s Shi`ite tribes, which historically have looked askance at clerical direction from any quarter, will further frustrate Iranian influence.

``Persians stick out in Iraq like sore thumbs (very few Iranians can speak Arabic with any facility). They must have Iraqi surrogates to advance their interests, which are in opposition to those of most Iraqis. The U.S. could bomb uranium-enrichment facilities in Iran and it`s much more likely Washington will see protests in the anti-Shi`ite Sunni Arab world than among Iraq`s Shi`ites. This is a paradox that Washington should understand. If we don`t, a nuclear-armed Iranian theocracy is likely to win in Iraq, and beyond.``

The idea is that a U.S./Shi`ite alliance would act as a brake on Iran. The big problem for the Americans is that the Sadrists are militantly anti-American, as well as hyper-nationalistic, and that the supposedly ``moderate`` SCIRI and Da`wa Party activists tend to be more pro-Iranian. Nevertheless, it appears that the U.S. has chosen SCIRI as the new American client in Iraq, and is now planning an offensive against the Sadrists, which is what the proposed ``surge`` is partially about.

As I noted at the time, Robert Dreyfuss was right on target with his 2004 analysis of how playing the ``Shi`ite card`` fits into the larger strategy of ``transformation`` in the Middle East:

``This theory, now official doctrine for the neocons, is at the heart of their Iran strategy. It counts as second Big Mistake of the Iraq war. Big Mistake No. 1 was the neocon belief that the Iraqis would welcome U.S. troops with open arms – instead, they welcomed us with arms. Big Mistake No. 2, now taking shape, is that Iraq`s Shi`ites are Good Guys who will lead a pro-American Iraq against Iran`s `clerical dictatorship.` I believe that they really believe this. But the reality is that in a Shi`ite-dominated Iraq, the hard-liners and the people with guns (i.e., the Badr Brigades) will take over, and they will make common cause with some of the clergy in Iran. It will be a dagger all right, but one aimed at Saudi Arabia`s Sunni state. Of course, that too is part of the long-term Israeli-neocon strategy, to overthrow the Saudi king. It`s a regional regime-change strategy (one that includes Syria of course) and it has been central to their whole Middle East policy for a decade. It is also a fantasy, with a thousand possibilities for things to go terribly wrong. Big Mistake No. 1 led to the Iraqi insurgency. Big Mistake No. 2 could lead to a Middle East inflamed by Islamic revolution in spades.``

Seen in the context of the ``war on terrorism,`` the strategy undertaken by the U.S. in Iraq makes a twisted kind of sense. If we approach the problem in theological terms, the idea of going on the offensive against militant Islam means splitting the Muslim world along sectarian lines – which is precisely what is happening in today`s Iraq. Tomorrow the same thing will be happening throughout the Middle East. Or so the War Party hopes.

Contra Dreyfuss, I don`t believe in the neocons` good intentions: they don`t really believe the Shi`ites are the ``Good Guys`` – not with the Badr Brigade on the rampage, carrying out a religious ``cleansing`` alongside the Mahdi Army of the Sadrists. And what about those Iranians caught in Hakim`s SCIRI compound, who were accused by the Americans of directing attacks on U.S. (and, presumably, Iraqi) forces?

The War Party is desperate to provoke the Iranians into a military conflict, and they are pulling out all the stops to do so. With economic sanctions against Iran already in place, and likely to be ratcheted up – along with the anti-Iranian propaganda campaign – the likelihood of war with the mullahs of Tehran is an eventuality that seems almost fated to occur, whether or not the American people support it. Less than half now believe a war with Iran in the next year is likely: however, I predict that number is bound to increase as 2007 drags on. The chances of war rise as we examine the positions of various prominent candidates for president on the Iran question, with even alleged peacenik Barack Obama openly musing that American military action is an ``option.``

George W. Bush has been savagely criticized and mercilessly mocked for declaring ``mission accomplished`` at the very moment when the anti-American insurgency was birthed, but in retrospect this makes perfect sense – if one realizes that our mission was the utter destruction of Iraq. As a dress rehearsal for the larger event – the coming Sunni-Shi`ite civil war that will go down in history as comparable to Europe`s Thirty Years` War pitting Catholics against Protestants – Iraq is truly a ``model`` for the rest of the region, albeit not in a way anybody but the perpetrators of this criminal policy expected.

All this outrage against the `botched` hanging of Saddam is another flimsy attempt to put the blame on USA. Everybody knows that it`s an open Shia-Sunni conflict now. In fact, it`s the presence of USA which atleast allowed for a half decent process for Saddam`s trial. Otherwise, his fate would have been similar to that of the Afghan president

Not to disturb passionate panegyrics here for the Great Man Saddam Hussain, does anyone know the etymology of the word avadhoot?

Parthaab, in case you take a break from crying bitter buckets?

Re: # 179

urstruly,


...... you and your conspiracy theories ! .......... if you are not careful you will end up in a looney bin with pat robertson and maulana masadi .........

urstruly, man your paranoia knows no bounds! IQ of body temp? What units? Kelvin?
It has been reported that the americans if anything wanted to postpone the execution but Maliki wanted the execution to be an ``eid gift to the people of iraq``. His government got Sistani`s OK for the execution during religious holidays, something forbidden under iraqi law. It should warm your cockles of your heart or something to learn that religious edict won over state law.
It was not american propaganda machinery that released the video. It was a clandestine video released to online video sites which are controlled by no one. FYI, the same ``american propaganda machinery`` also shows videos of IED attacks on american soldiers in iraq.
Lastly, Pat Robertson sure knows the future. He predicted that devastating tsunami would occur in the US in 2006 and we all know what happened.

hamdimd

Look, the powers that be have already started preparing people`s mind as to what is about to happen. Any idiot with an IQ equal to his body temperature knows that those who perpetrated 9/11 will strike once again to keep the current butchers in power. My personal guess is that this time they will impose Martial law in US after such attacks:

Pat Robertson Predicts Deadly Attack on U.S.

AP

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. (Jan. 3) - In what has become an annual tradition of prognostications, religious broadcaster Pat Robertson said Tuesday God has told him that a terrorist attack on the United States would result in ``mass killing`` late in 2007.

#158 by hamidm2 on January 3, 2007 8:28am PT

don`t know...don`t give a fuck...

Re: # 156

arjun,

.... when did mahmud ghazni attack india ?

Re: # 149

majumdar,

....... i think it is okay to discuss gandhiji on this board - he was a bigger threat to mankind than saddam ............

........ as derek zoolander said , ``have you ever wondered if there was more to life, other than being really, really, ridiculously good looking`` ........... gandhi was killed by the male models and the fashion industry - and he deserved it ! ............ it is over, so live with it ...

#122 by Salim_Chauhan on January 2, 2007 7:17pm PT


when were the last crusades?

And now, in typically Muslim fashion, the issue over the Sadman Houston execution fiasco has surfaced as a witch hunt for the culprit who recorded the hanging. Astonishingly, the behavior of the taunting Shia executioners is not the glaring problem. The grief is over who had the audacity to expose this travesty and mockery of a state execution. Once again, the traditional Muslim practice of controlling the truth about an evil act takes precedence over the evil act itself.

#128 by akberc

Nations that write their own history survive, those that let their enemies do it for them - are doomed to be subdued and lost in history.

Well said Akber Saheb. I hope someone listens.

#129 by Mantolives on January 2, 2007 10:24pm PT

there`s a top secret project on in India to resurrect the g-man from the dead so he can be tried...

Once that`s developed, we`ll let you in on the technology so you can resurrect the killers of millions of bengalis in 71 and try them...

deal?

bloodletting is a tested cure for curing many diseases

....... what is happening in the muslim world - shias and sunnis killing each other - is necessary to cure the disease that has afflicted the ummah since the time of the abominable four ........... it would be nice if we could undo the harm done by the conquest of mecca and restore al-lat and her sisters to their rightful place in the kaaba, but it is too late for that now .......... the only hope we have is that muslims will come around after this round of bloodshed and join the ranks of civilized people .........

okhla writes <<< Hanging of Saddam is but one step forward in the eminently sensible long term US plan for the region -- Control over the oil resources. And this can, in the opinion of the think tank, be easily achieved by balkanisation of the Iran-Iraq-Pakistan region >>>

Only the most diseased mind on earth can claim that the human disaster caused by US global intervention is ``eminently sensible``. There is nothing on the international level that can be ``easily achieved``, your unnamed ``think tank`` thought that Iraq would be a cake walk as well. Because Kuwait is ``easily controlled`` does not mean that other tiny regions can also be easily controlled, there is not much that is uniform between different regions and their neighbours and how they would react, generalizing in this fashion is typical Musharraf BS. Further there is no ``order`` in this chaos, there is chaos and further chaos and human misery. Regardless of your obsession with me, damn fool intellects like you are scattered all over the internet like bird droppings, they don`t fool anyone by merely rehashing official propaganda that the mainstream does a much better job of presenting than diseased minds like yours. You on the other hand are happy polishing the boots of the dictator that polishes the boots of we know who, in all of this your slave mentality and the slave mentality of your mentor are clearly evident.

Re: # 149

Glad you notice the futility of any discussion.

However, this current barrage started from my innocent question .... and for that I apologise and promise not to discuss this issue i.e. racist casteist hindu fascist bigot gandhi

Manto mian,

Discussing MKG/MAJ (pbuh) won`t stop the slaughter either in Iraq or in the subcontinent. It was just that this is a post on Saddam Hussein. But anyways all posts on chowk end up with MAJ-MKG/Hanud-Musla, Hindian/Paki arguments. So maybe shouldn`t be too concerned.

Regards

Re: # 147

... in response to Majumdar.

... and you feel discussing it on chowk will miraculously stop Iraqis from slaughtering each other...

Wah bhai... you give a whole new meaning to the word ``delusional``.

While not quite appropriate (saddam was all about his personal glory, and iraqis were mere gaajer-mooli to be cut up as needed, and so could hardly be called a patriot), this ``takht yaa takhtaa`` (the throne or the execution platform) is indeed an old story, as per below.


The Patriot, The
by Robert Browning

AN OLD STORY.

I.

It was roses, roses, all the way,
With myrtle mixed in my path like mad:
The house-roofs seemed to heave and sway,
The church-spires flamed, such flags they had,
A year ago on this very day.

II.

The air broke into a mist with bells,
The old walls rocked with the crowd and cries.
Had I said, ``Good folk, mere noise repels-
But give me your sun from yonder skies!``
They had answered, ``And afterward, what else?``

III.

Alack, it was I who leaped at the sun
To give it my loving friends to keep!
Nought man could do, have I left undone:
And you see my harvest, what I reap
This very day, now a year is run.

IV.

There`s nobody on the house-tops now-
Just a palsied few at the windows set;
For the best of the sight is, all allow,
At the Shambles` Gate-or, better yet,
By the very scaffold`s foot, I trow.

V.

I go in the rain, and, more than needs,
A rope cuts both my wrists behind;
And I think, by the feel, my forehead bleeds,
For they fling, whoever has a mind,
Stones at me for my year`s misdeeds.

VI.

Thus I entered, and thus I go!
In triumphs, people have dropped down dead.
``Paid by the world, what dost thou owe
``Me?``-God might question; now instead,
`Tis God shall repay: I am safer so.

Manto mian,

Hey bhagwan. Iraqis are busy slaughtering each other and you are still after poor MKG/JLN/SPV`s backsides.

Regards

Dear Ranjit,

One thing is sure... you`ve got your analogies messed up... Shia Jinnah`s greatest achievement was bringing the diverse communities of Sunnis, Barelvis, Doebandis, Shias, Ismailis, Agha Khanis, Bohris and even Bahais on one united platform... just as once he had even brought Hindus and Muslims together for a brief moment...

However.. it is true that the Shia community has unfortunately found witchdoctors of Gandhi`s stature in Sistani and Moqtada ... hell bent on destroying Iraqi minorities- sunnis, communists and Christians.... and that is creating the same confusion, Gandhi once did in United India.

Re:manto

Manto yaar, what Iraq needs is a Jinnah. Anyone with half a brain can see that Iraqis just do not want to live together anymore. The prudent thing to do is to separate them and carve out separate countries, autonomous units, whatever. The oil wealth needs to be shared in some proportion, while Uncle Sam keeps an eye on terrorism. Thats it. Just separate them and let them chart their own destinies.

Speaking of separate destinies, check out the following about India`s boom in real estate due to the frenzied economic growth. You know, every day we hindus say a prayer to Jinnah while we laugh all the way to the bank!! Om Shri Jinnaye Namah......

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070102/lf_nm/india_property_dc

Re: # 141

{Re:manto#129

[,,My question is that if Saddam was hanged... why were people like Casteist racist hindu fascist bigot Gandhi and his disciples Nehru and Patel who plotted the deaths of millions of people not tried for crimes against humanity?....]

Hey Arjun2, are you there? Manto beat you to the punch on this board with the first dibs on calling Gandhi a racist, castist, nazi. Arjun dude, you need to do better next time.....}


I too have noticed that the denudation of the racist, casteist, hindu fascist bigot Gandhi is now on auto pilot.

Anyway... let us remember a man who died valiantly... even if he was a tyrant and forget that racist casteist hindu fascist bigot Gandhi for now.

Re:manto#129

[,,My question is that if Saddam was hanged... why were people like Casteist racist hindu fascist bigot Gandhi and his disciples Nehru and Patel who plotted the deaths of millions of people not tried for crimes against humanity?....]

Hey Arjun2, are you there? Manto beat you to the punch on this board with the first dibs on calling Gandhi a racist, castist, nazi. Arjun dude, you need to do better next time.....

#36 by Salim_Chauhan to #35, Anil,

Salim,

What you listed is what actually happened, but not `why` that happened. The entire difference was over whether Muhammad`s successor should be spiritual or temporal. According to Ali`s supporters, the `Deen` had not been completed with Muhammad`s demise (evidenced by Muhammad`s remark about Ali at Ghadir-Al-Khumm on return from the Last Sermon), and Muhammad`s insistence that descended injunctions can only be delivered by Ahl-e-Bait . According to consensus of Suhaba-e-Karam, however, the `Deen` had been completed, and now a temporal succession of worldy hierarchy was required to consolidate and expand. As it turned out, both were right in the long run.

However I have no doubt that all attempts to divide the Sunni/Shia will fail, because Muslims of any persuation know these americans etc have no other option to defeat an ideology such as Islam except by divide & rule. Iran`s reaction on Saddam`s lynching, Ahmedinejad`s offer to share nuke technology with Sunni Arab regimes, and much earlier statements on several occasions by Muqtada and his boycotting the Al-Maliki cabinet against meeting Bush is sufficient proof.

Hanging of Saddam is but one step forward in the eminently sensible long term US plan for the region -- Control over the oil resources. And this can, in the opinion of the think tank, be easily achieved by balkanisation of the Iran-Iraq-Pakistan region. Small states with oil resources can be ``managed`` effectively (the Kuwait model). Other small & medium states without any significant oil resources can surely be relied upon to maintain a hostile environment with constant mini wars amongst themselves which threaten to spill over into and engulf the ``oil holders`` which would be ``duly protected`` by the US. For a price.

Therefore, the next step would be balkanization of the region. Whether Kurdistan becomes independent first or Balochistan is what remains to be seen. The order is immaterial. What matters is that there is an order in the chaos. The US is slowly and surely inching towards its long term goals. And no amount of chest thumping is going to daunt it…..

And of course, Masadi knows this all...

``I think Shias should have been magnaminous and commuted his sentence to life improsonment and sent to Saudi Arabia as Musharaff did to NS. ``

How can we compare SH ,a dictator and a genocidal maniac, with NS or BB who were democratically elected by Pakistani population??? This is all confused thinking and a propaganda being spread by the Islamists. SH met his fate. He deserved it all. Like many other rascal psychopaths who show no sign of resentment, he smiled mockingly at the manhood of those who were could not stop him from butchering all those people he had killed. Remember SH claimed to have sounded every one about the American and Persian conspiracy before he faced the gallows. There have been many such criminals before who claimed innocence even when they confront death and we would see more of them again when such criminals would shout and claim martrydom when they face the gallows spouting conspiracy theories in order to ``prove`` their innocence!!

America has done an excellent job of shielding its populatoin from the reality of the world as well as the appropriate context of the events. But Saddam, through his lynching, tore through the steriled coverage of tragedy in Iraq and provided perhaps one of the few glimpses into the perversion of the sanctity of human life that is now a daily occurence in Iraq. Through the televised specatacle of his hanging, he did far more service to iraqi cause than had he died in a shoot-out 3 years ago, with american media giving its own spin to the events of shoot-out. Remember, this media told us that his sons Uday and Qusay were carrying condoms when they died!

There wasnt any video that showed the civilized people of america the true horror of the rape and immolation of a 14 year old iraqi girl at the hands of american liberation army. There wasnt any video of the killing of an entire male population of Fallujah, where dogs feasted on the corpses for days. There arent any videos of the death that reigns in Al-anbar province today.

Saddam, through his diginified death, has shocked and stunned the world. Americans are now distancing themselves from this lynching. Italy is talking about an international ban on death penalty. Whatever little bit of high moral ground the americans and the brits have, Saddam through his incredible grace on gallows, has wrestled it away from them.

Here is another comment by a US Citizen:
````The shabby, tawdry scene of Muqtada Sadr`s riffraff taunting their defenseless former tyrant evokes exactly this quality of hysterical falsity and bravado. While Saddam Hussein was alive, they cringed. Now, they find their lost courage, and meanwhile take the drill and the razor blade and the blowtorch to their fellow Iraqis. To watch this abysmal spectacle as a neutral would be bad enough. To know that the U. S. government had even a silent, shamefaced part in it is to feel something well beyond embarrassment.``
Hitchen

And an Indian:
``We are all lessened by that video execution - regardless of our beliefs, ideology or location. ``
Anamika

My comments on another site.

Man by nature is political.He loves to aggrandise and hence the psychological causes of conflict. Whether such men act as despots in individual societies or are backed by the political system, they all tend to aggrandise at the cost of the other. Hence dominance; violence a means of policy and so on.

In this case the two driving motivations are the Americain Ideology of democracy at whatever cost, and the spectre of a dethroned despot becoming a symbol of Arabism and Jehad. His demeanour in the entire process of execution, will certainly make him an adorable icon in the hearts and minds of many. So at one hand, he gets sympathy of even those who did not like him and a martyr for romanticson and those who will draw political mileage. Hence this perception of a Moral Dillema will haunt US interests in the Region.

How will USA change that? How will it win hearts and minds?

I for one shudder.

Cheerios

Here are some comments of interactors of Daily Telegrah. I feel that this discussion should take place on a moral plain and not political.

---

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=CVDPWK1IETUZJQFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0?xml=/opinion/2007/01/02/dl0201.xml&posted=true&_requestid=202647#comments

This execution looks like the second crucifixtion of Christ with Bush like Herod cowardly washing his hands of the whole affair. Saddam an evil man showed all the dignity and died like a lion.
Posted by Raj Singh on January 2, 2007 4:15 PM
Report this comment

The position adopted by The Telegraph here is very irrational, perverse and deeply hypocritical. How can it support the deliberate killing of a human being (whether the victim is a mass murderer himself or a saint), but be against the silly taunts he was forced to endure at the hands of the lynch mob? Were the taunts more abhorent than the execution itself?

Also, to those who argue that this was the ``Iraqi way`` of doing things - and therefore not our business - the vast majority of countries (representing a vast swathe of humanity - including various cultures) reject the death penalty. This is a basic fact, as evidenced by international treaties. As it happens, only a tiny few (including the United States, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and those other ``great democracies`` which merely happen to be run by tyrannical rulers) still support that kind of punishment.
Posted by AKPAN on January 2, 2007 3:45 PM
Report this comment

Jarvis - I`m opposed to the death penalty, but the cynic in me knows that alot of people die every day and I`m lucky enough not to live somewhere like Iraq, so if that`s what the Iraqi people feel is needed to bring closure to the bloodshed then I`ll suppress my sensibilities temporarily...

The evidence is, however, that it has done exactly the opposite of helping Iraq, and who can be suprised?

From the moment that the US army announced (to claps and whoops) that ``we got him`` to the moment a full video of his sad, brutal, humiliating death was made publicly available on youtube.com, the whole exercise of Saddam`s capture and trial has reeked of the kind of triumphalism which can only fuel the Arab grievance.

I sensed an inevitability that this is how it would end though. I mean.. right up until a few days before his lyn...sorry, hanging, they were talking about putting him to death in a sports stadium in front of spectators

Iraq a democracy? Maybe in about 200 years.....
Posted by John on January 2, 2007 3:35 PM
Report this comment

Thanks, Errol Flynn (any relation?) In the chaos of the last five years I`d totally forgotten that it was Bill and Hilary Clinton who ordered the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and it was the New York Times who opened Camp X-Ray. It`s a good thing we`ve got people like you to remind us of the truth when some pinko peacenik like Jay Diamond comes along, and it`s an even better thing that rather than offer any counter debate we can just threaten to ``horse whip`` or ``smack`` that kind of hippie scum for saying such stuff.
Posted by David Llewellyn on January 2, 2007 3:27 PM
Report this comment

Balance please ladies and gentlemen.We all seem to have become slightly demented as 100s of horrible images along with violent language nourish our fears.Look at the way we accuse each-other of being fools or on the wrong track. Beware of feeling more enlightened that the other. This may be followed by messages from God himself! Then we might actually have to do something! Some people want to make our world black and white and are pushing us to take sides. Thought, Meditation and the odd deeo breath as well as some dreaming to let your subconsious have a go at these momenteus events. It`s all too easy for us sitting comfortably away from the battle field to have trenchant opinions. How about listening to ordinary Iraqi people. Where are they given voice? Then ask them how you could help from a practical point of view. Or how about sending some reputable ngo a few quid to bring some relief to these people. Our opinions will have absolutely no effect on the outcome of this war. Our actions on the other hand just might. The only side we should be on is that of the Iraqi population (men, women and children all)
Posted by Jarvis Seliva on January 2, 2007 2:50 PM
Report this comment

Everything about Iraq reflects a gung-ho attitude by the (uninvited) occupiers. Note that when Tony Blair visits Iraq it is only to smile at the (over-stretched) British troops not talk with any ordinary Iraqis. Just given them a nod like the forgotten British public that eventually will have to pay for these (ill-judged) missions without UN permission. Of course any conversation with any IRAQI will provide a response that includes the statement....we know you are in Iraq for the free oil which is paying for your extended occupation. Meanwhile the ``allies`` insist that victory is around the next corner. Play that one again uncle sam!
Posted by Jack Anderson on January 2, 2007 2:49 PM
Report this comment

God loves a repentant sinner more than the self righteous, and Sadam was making repentant statements by calling on his people to live in peace and not to hate even those who invaded the country to remove him. Would keeping him alive in jail as a peace broker among the factions not have been a better option? What vengeance do you derive from killing a peacock whose feathers you have completely plucked, a worthless vengeance. May God`s will be done for peace to reign in Iraq despite man`s folly.
Posted by Joseph Opigo on January 2, 2007 2:18 PM
Report this comment

Perhaps the rather graphic images of this event will burn themselves into the minds of those who glibly call for a return of the death penalty.

It`s easy to discuss objectively and dispassionately in some cafe or bar over a few drinks but when the horrible reality of a violent death is actually in front of ones eyes. Objectivity isn`t quite so easy. yet there are those who would wish this. Of course they won`t get their own hands dirty. No they will abdicate that responsibility to someone else`s conscience.

However, it can`t be undone. Saddam is dead and regardless of the fudge made of it life will go on. Will it have any long term effects on the situation in Iraq? I doubt it. The insurgency is as savage as it can be. It may boost recruitment in the short term but that`s about it. Atrocities will be carried out in his name. They would have been carried out anyway just the media will have a new stick to shake.

He`s as much a matyr as Zarqarwi. I even had to sit and think of the man`s name for a moment then. Saddam`s name will last longer but his effect won`t
Posted by Steve Ipswich on January 2, 2007 1:58 PM
Report this comment

Would the self-hating wimp, Mr. Jay Diamond (see below)

---

an admitted resident of New York, the Left-Wing capital of the Western world

---

prefer to be smacked or horse whipped?

It isn`t America`s right-wing that has caused this mess. The fault lies with Bill Clinton and his communist wife, Hillary, during the era of the Democrat`s ``New Covenant,`` aided and abetted more recently by the treasonous New York Times and that useless little ex-General Secretary of the United Nations, Kofi Annan.
Posted by Errol Flynn on January 2, 2007 1:43 PM
Report this comment

I thought the USA normally takes 25 years to execute people?
Posted by Rick on January 2, 2007 1:15 PM
Report this comment

Lets face it, Sadam Hussain`s record for dividing his political opposition remains unbeaten.
If all the points of view aired in this discussion are representative of his opposition within a Irak during the last 30 years, it is no wonder he lasted so long!
The Monty Python film `Life of Brian`, where the various factions opposing the Romans were always in comical disarray, comes to mind.

Posted by Les Green on January 2, 2007 12:49 PM
Report this comment

The whole thing is a disgrace, but are you surprised? Humiliation and public spectacle is an aspect of US justice (think shackles and jump suits) heavily endorsed by George Bush, as is capital punishment, and they funded the court which tried Saddam, as well as openly calling for his death.

I don`t see how the US administration can walk away from this without being tarred, certainly in the eyes of Arabs who will view this as yet another inflammatory humiliation of Arab people and leaders.

The best thing that can come from this is a serious introspection of the bombastic, triumphalist ``might is right`` culture which pervades the US administration and its supporters.

Tough times ahead for the US...maybe they`ll learn something from it. I hope so.
Posted by John on January 2, 2007 12:46 PM
Report this comment

It appears to be a universal truth that those who live by the sword die by the sword (no matter how hard we humanists and other bleeding western hearts try to show them the error of their ways).

The erstwhile nationalist South African apartheid government always insisted that the management of the regime was an internal affair and that outside interference would not be tolerated in any way, shape or form. Perhaps we should learn a lesson from this.

When in Rome, Chaps, do as the Romans do: live and let live.

Hears to a Long Life 2007.
Posted by Stanislau Romanovich on January 2, 2007 12:05 PM
Report this comment

Another excellent example that there is no perfect judiciary system in the world. Another brilliant blow to the delusional ideas of secular humanism. Only God can (and will) administer perfect justice. To those who are so vehemently opposed to capital punishment (despite convictions beyond all reasonable doubt, as in the case of Saddam), I wonder would these same people be so vehemently opposed to paying more taxes to keep unrepentant mass-murderers alive, as well as endless building of more & more high-security prisons, paying for more prison wardens etc. The next time the British government ask for more taxes, do pay up and stop whinging & blaming them for everything. It`s so boring and utterly stupid to hear, yet again, blame assigned to Bush for what the Iraqi judiciary & people wanted. Pathetic Bush-bashing and boring conspiracy theories. By the way, I`m not even an American.
Posted by Ming Ye on January 2, 2007 11:47 AM
Report this comment

The disgraceful manner of execution by Iraqi govetnment, fully supported by US highlights the point that things are out of control and very bleak future for Iraq. which is likely to be enguled in a sectarian conflict, which can even engulf the whole middle east. Well done BUSH.
Posted by Mansoor Alam on January 2, 2007 11:46 AM
Report this comment

It was, indeed, a truly repellent affair (even for those of us who refused to watch the actual execution itself), and neither Bush nor Blair can absolve himself of full liability for it all. I hear countless references to it being the decision of a ``sovereign government`` in Iraq. Where was that sovereignty when the Americans inserted a provision in the new Iraqi constitution clearly aimed at protecting their own investment? And yet, when it came to guaranteeing basic human rights and due process, it all suddenly became a matter of ``sovereignty.`` If only they had recalled the warning issued by the (American) chief counsel to the Nuremberg Tribunal, Robert Jackson: ``We are handing the defendants a `poisoned chalice`, and if we sip from it, we must accept the same judgement.`` But then, hasn`t George Bush himself personally been responsible for the execution of countless black and underprivileged people while governor of Texas, including those who simply couldn`t afford proper legal representation at their trials?
Posted by AKPAN on January 2, 2007 11:38 AM
Report this comment

Saddam`s killers have achieved the impossible: they have made us feel sympathy for him, for his grace under pressure. There may not have been dignity in the dying, but there was courage. An ageing man with a grey beard stands, looking bemused, beneath a makeshift gibbet while his enemies taunt him. As he is saying a final prayer, the trapdoor is suddenly released and he plunges to his death, a brief expression of surprise registering on his face as the floor gives way
Posted by Swati Sharma on January 2, 2007 11:30 AM
Report this comment

Its everything they touch that turns to dross. The Americans started this whole thing, drawing gullible Blair in with promises of oil. They caught Saddam. They held him prisoner. With Iraqi puppets they tried him. It was decided many months ago what the outcome was going to be. They had control and they could have stopped this travesty of justice. Of course he was guilty of all charges, but it would have been so much better if he had been allowed to rot, visibly, in prison. He seemed proud, or resigned, when he was led to the rope. With no Sunnis present it was always going to be interpreted as a lynching.

America and Britain have a lot to answer for, and that includes allowing the martyrdom of the despicable Saddam.
Posted by Jeremy Bell on January 2, 2007 11:22 AM
Report this comment

Americans think they are the most important people on this planet but forget there are others too. Americans should brave themselves for very trying times ahead
Posted by Horo on January 2, 2007 11:20 AM
Report this comment

saddam got what he deserves. iraq is not Britian and the rules there are different. this is the main thing that the west failed to understand and that east is east and west is west. the western failures in iraq and afghanstan are due to failure of understanding this basic fact. saddam will never be a martyr even with sunnis. he had got a fair execution by iraqi standards
Posted by dr issa on January 2, 2007 11:16 AM
Report this comment

So Washington is heavy with recrimination - but what about recrimination in the UK? As a British conservative I believe firmly in the rule of law, and was horrified by the wholly illegal Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, which took place without a UN mandate. The consequence of this invasion - the judicial assassination of a fellow head of state - should make Tony Blair, as an Oxford graduate in law, quake in his shoes.
Posted by Edmund Burke on January 2, 2007 11:14 AM
Report this comment

Nonsense. He`d be ``a martyr`` to the fanatics whether jailed or killed. This way at least he`s a ``martyr`` who will never, ever return. A whole line of plotting by the insurgency and the anti-Bush crowd has been utterly confounded. It may not be perfect, but it`s enough.
Posted by Julian Morrison on January 2, 2007 10:48 AM
Report this comment

A demised leader, taunted and humiliated before his execution. The `ruling` power `wash their hands of the event.
Haven`t we heard of an event like this that happened a long long time ago? Human nature never changes.
Posted by Fred. Whitehead on January 2, 2007 10:39 AM
Report this comment

There never would have been a right time to carry to the execution; better that it was done sooner rather than later. But the fact remains that Saddam went with some dignity, whilst the baying witnesses allowed their feelings to show at the wrong moment. But that is what happens in a sectarian, divided country, on the verge of civil war.
The outlook is extremely bleak and the sooner we are out of it the better. Brown`s first act should be to remove our troops in his first 100 days.
Posted by swatantra nandanwar on January 2, 2007 10:36 AM
Report this comment

Exactly how many times do we have to say ``I told you so`` before you lot will start to get the message?

Posted by F Wright on January 2, 2007 10:35 AM
Report this comment

Executing Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do. Executing him in the circumstances that we have all seen was no less brutal than the executions for which he himself was put on trial. It seems pretty clear in this instance that he pot and the kettle are the same colour. For America to now cry foul is closing the door after the horse has bolted. Let`s face it, this could and should have been avoided.
Posted by Geoff Turner on January 2, 2007 10:11 AM
Report this comment

The dignified and much-edited silent footage of the judicial execution of Saddam Hussein was in itself alien to Western sensibilities but should have been enough - along with footage of the body - to satisfy those in Iraq who would not otherwise accept the end of the former Dictator`s life.

The clandestine (though there is much to suggest those supervising - if that is the word - the execution were complicit) second filming which looks better than a camera phone with sound has done incalculable damage.

Iraqis supposed to be officers of the State showed themselves to be highly partisan and treated Saddam Hussein appallingly. It matters not Saddam`s crimes as an absolute dictator: far smaller men with lesser remits showed themselves in an equally ugly light at this event.

Saddam behaved with dignity. He was aware of the official fiming. The illicit film actually puts him in an even better light - the bigoted fools who took part show that Iraqis of all political and religious hues cannot yet be trusted to behave like civilised human beings.

You begin to wonder if such people deserve democracy. It seems to me we have a vicious circle here: Iraqis behave in a manner akin to that the former Dictator and his predecessors had shown them for perhaps 40 years.

This is chicken and egg - Saddam did not make the Iraqis like this - he simply rose to the top in an administration which was already brutal and partisan. There is not a shred of reconciliation or closure about the democratic regime or his death. Iraq looks doomed as a nation state.
Posted by simon coulter on January 2, 2007 10:06 AM
Report this comment

The murderous thugs that put down Saddam are now tarred with the same brush as Saddam himself and they deserve all that is coming to them.

No matter what position they hold, law they are hiding behind,their nationality or religion.

This is EVIL at work for everyone to see.
Posted by J F Wilson on January 2, 2007 10:02 AM
Report this comment

he was the lion of iraq and in his death he was the man.
A Great man indeed .
Just because the US and Great Britan say that he was bad does not make him bad.
he has to be judged from his standards and from the western standards

Posted by Deepak Singh on January 2, 2007 10:02 AM
Report this comment

Congratulations to the U.S. administration on their magnificent ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and achieve precisely the opposite of their intention! Will they never develop the ability to walk upright and use their brains. When they learn that they need to respect and work through World institutions rather than the law of the gunslinger and lynch law then they may deserve some respect. Saddam Hussein emerges as the dignified victim and martyr - just what Bush needed! He should have been tried before the World on all charges, as should all world leaders who abuse their trust. They would have done better, having comprehensively wrecked Iraq and stirred up moslem fundamentalism, to put him back in charge to sort the mess out!
Posted by Alan on January 2, 2007 9:48 AM
Report this comment

So the quick death meted out to poor old Saddam wasn`t quite as nice for him as it might have been. Diddums. Now he is being handed a `crown of martyrdom` by all the depraved western journalists who were not nearly so morally offended by the many thousands of people tortured and murdered without trial by this monster.
Anyone who takes Saddam for a martyr evidently has no morals, but there are degrees of moral degradation. It would be difficult to sink any lower than, for example, an anonymous Telegraph leader-writer who is happy to play the martyrdom card for Saddam, merely for the sake of a bit of clever-dick political sneering designed to stir up trouble.

Posted by John Blackburn on January 2, 2007 9:45 AM
Report this comment

I have always thought Saddam a fascist tyrant - however his execution has only increased my respect for him. I am also beginning to feel an anymosity towards Iraq`s Shias that I never had before.
Posted by hakim on January 2, 2007 9:33 AM
Report this comment

Saddam was a mass murderer with contempt for the kind of legal process that most of us enjoy. That in no way means he should have been stripped of a humane and decent departure. Worse, the Iraqi government is now perceived, not as a new beginning, but as the continuation of the old regime - just with different colours. Britain`s complicity, rather than coming out staunch against the death penalty when there was still time, will forever link the United Kingdom with the mayhem that is now Iraq. That Blair still has a parliamentary majority is a stain on the character of every left-leaning voter in the country. You should all be ashamed.
Posted by Mark Mcfarland, Hongkong on January 2, 2007 9:33 AM
Report this comment

When men of honour must do vile deeds they do them themselves.
Posted by Noel Falconer on January 2, 2007 9:06 AM
Report this comment

The whole Saddam thing reminded me of when I first went to University as a politics student ten years ago.

I can remember very clearly the lefty types all argued that Saddam was obviously an evil man, that Iraq should be invaded and that Clinton should not be given a second term as President given his reluctance to go to war like Bush Snr.

The righty types all argued at the time that sanctions were the answer, invasion was a very bad thing and that Saddam should be left alone to die and Iraq could then change itself.

How times change! - nobody on the political spectrum has anything to be proud of here.
Posted by Dara on January 2, 2007 9:06 AM
Report this comment

I`m sorry, but you come across as like nothing so much as the first officer in the Caine Mutiny!
Having, as a media organ, been part of the whipping up of the baying mob, when the denouement comes you retreat to the back of the crowd, dissociating yourself from the event.
Bush is to be applauded for his discreet comment - Blair`s `no comment` was a cowardly option.
Shame on you all!
Posted by Graham King on January 2, 2007 8:58 AM
Report this comment

I seem to remember the media outcry over Washington`s tasteless gloating over the capture of Saddam. To me any attempt to mitigate their role in this squalid affair flies in the face of every thought, action & reaction of the US government and their Gung Ho military from day one of the Iraq debacle. Not for the first time their belief that might is right and that they have God on their side unravels into trigger happy incompetance.
Posted by Vandiemen on January 2, 2007 8:56 AM
Report this comment

``Mr Bush could be forgiven for thinking that everything he touches in this ill-starred country turns to dross.``
There is absolutely no indication of Mr Bush ``thinking`` what he was doing about that country since 2001.
Posted by sam_m on January 2, 2007 8:23 AM
Report this comment

I detest Saddam, but I detest as much this dreadful miscarriage of justice. Saddam Hussein is not the sole villain in a process that, from the outset, was designed to produce only one outcome. The conduct of the trial was a travesty of justice on several counts. Justice emanating from a flawed trial will not bring reconciliation but will beckon retribution.
Apart from the fundamental unacceptability of capital punishment, there are
more immediate and pragmatic reasons why Saddam Hussein should have been
made to pay for his crimes by a sentence other than death. While most Iraqis
may view Hussein`s death with relief, the country`s Sunni population now
have an even more tangible handle to dismiss the Saddam Hussein trial as
nothing more than a political show put on by an illegitimate US-backed Shia
government. Hussein`s execution could also keep Sunni factions from joining
the political process in Iraq, fuelling the Sunni-led insurgency in the
country, it could even encourage Iraq`s Shias and their various militias to
step up the reprisal killings against the Sunnis.

Posted by Dr Kailash Chand on January 2, 2007 8:16 AM
Report this comment

Nothing became him in this life like the leaving of it.
Posted by cuffleyburgers on January 2, 2007 7:49 AM
Report this comment

A new law is reported to being approved by W that from now on the suspects of any crimes will be given over to the prosecutors for dispensing justice.

Meanwhile, someone who didn`t support the role of a leader in life unless he was supported by US, has attained the title of martyr that he didn`t deserve, unless also supported by US
Posted by Jody Bush on January 2, 2007 7:12 AM
Report this comment

I seem to recall that The Telegraph was in favour of executing Saddam Hussein. Could the editor please suggest a nice, cosy, civilized way in which this could have been carried out.
Posted by jmn on January 2, 2007 5:50 AM
Report this comment

It is imposible to buy this arguement because as the world percieves it, USA runs the show there. Minuts before his death, Saddam was in custody of US Gaurds, who I am sure under a well articulated procedure handed him over. I am also sure that lots of paper work was completed before USA like Herodes, washed its hands.
Unfortunately the backwash of this Lynch will add to the hate that exists in the Muslim (predominantly Sunni)World against USA.
Posted by Ijaz Gul on January 2, 2007 5:30 AM
Report this comment

Yet another horrific outcome from the lack of leadership and misguided meddling from US
President George Bush. This dangerous goofball, and the military/industruial/oil buddies are directly or indirectly responsible for all that is going on in this propped up government in Iraq. When is this evil man going to be tried for War crimes, as was Saddam? I wonder how swiftly Bush will be hung? Yep, you guessed it...he won`t even be tried. So, maybe they should go after his family as was done with Saddam`s? I never supported Saddam at all....but the Bush family did....until he no longer served their purpose. Bush and all those involved MUST be tried for the war criminals that they most definitely are. Responsibility for all this death and destruction must be directly laid at their feet. Posted by Luca Ponti on January 2, 2007 5:24 AM

Re: # 130
Also Indian leaders were not defated leaders, only defeated leader meet such things

Re: # 128
I think the trial was done by elected govt with judges. It was Iraqi court system. Trial was not unfair , he had lawyers and had defence team. And the judgement was delivered and death sentence was awarded. The execution was not done properly without traces of minimum dignity. It was wrong and shameful. Middleeast is not known for decency to be shown to defeated rulers. Great leader of AWAM ZAB was hanged and even his private checked afterwards to if he had religious procedure, shameful act. Iraq is cruel place for defeated people. Even dirct decendant of messanger Allah (PUBH),Hashmite king of iraq was assured safe passage and after surrendering including him his family was slaughtered (likr Tsars of russia). Then General Abdul Karim Kassim when lost power was slaughtered after fake trial. Then it is said mr S.H. also killed leader of Baths strong man of IRAQ A.B. in helicopter accident. In Afghanistan Doud ousted king, traki killed doud, Amin killed, last communist leader was willed and hanged as butcher kills animals and hangs. Iranian revolutionaries killed prisoned former primeministed Abbas Hoeda and displayed the bullet ridden body of late prime minister, they killed own talkative minister Sadeh gob Bazadeh ( some thing like that), killers of Mujib did not spare his children , wife, grandchildrens, its kill or get killed atmosphere which excites people and sense of equilibrium lost for centuries.
The hunter had became hunted and restraint was lost. And Mr.S.H. at last showed no remorse for what he did things to his people. HE was not treated with decency is regratable but even at last he could not leave hatred behind and showed his hatred for Pursians and jews that was not degnified as he was meeting this situation neither persians or jews were responsible. Its all going just like many did not like NS but his trial of trying to kill General was as fake as can be and see then he was convicted of such crime our court system has not failed but collapsed or always white washing coups and Chief judge becoming water bearer of General is more indecent that indecent tragic way execution carried by wrong way. I think Shias should have been magnaminous and commuted his sentence to life improsonment and sent to Saudi Arabia as Musharaff did to NS.
But Shias and Kurds have agenda to break Iraq , Shias actively are trying put fear in minds of Sunnis and Kurds are quitely working to keep areas under command free of terror and waiting at proper time to exit Iraq at their own timing. It appears it will like old india which was trifercated same iraq will be trifercated. All things should consider under backdrop culture of successesion through execution in middleeast areas. Its all sad there is nothing good.
Good day every body

``Pakistan would have been much better off had the Afghans become true Communists at heart.`` (salim chauhan)

what a daring concept! -- Pakistan would have a PLA instead of a MMA -- and the US all 7/11 -- instead of 9/11.....!

Re: # 129

I think all dead otherwise sure many nations, specially UNO would have liked to try and hang all three.

My question is that if Saddam was hanged... why were people like Casteist racist hindu fascist bigot Gandhi and his disciples Nehru and Patel who plotted the deaths of millions of people not tried for crimes against humanity?

Whew! What a response!

Re: my Pakistani origin and other India-Pakistani or Bangladeshi or Afghani barb-trading: no comments

Re: Shia-Sunni issue: there are clear indications that the U.S. wishes to exacerbate this issue (Samarra incident, giving leeway to Muqtada, etc.) , although there is ample evidence that this is an artificial distinction. The historical origins of the Sunni/Shia versions of history will remain, so there is no point in focusing on them. In my opinion, Sunni/Shia do not meet the threshold of being theological sects, but rather political groups based on two different versions of history. http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/29/fox-civil-war-positive/ - proof that the US is aware of this and is using it for its ends.

Re: hatred of the West: well, I admire the West for a lot of things. The current crop of untruthful chicken leaders are not worthy of their ancestors, like Thomas Jefferson or John Stuart Mill. We should not hate the West, nor worship it - treat it objectively.

Re: why I wrote this eulogy: If one can be written for Stalin, or Napoleon I, or Napoleon III, or Henry VIII, or Lord Mountbatten, why not Saddam? Something I will write on in the future (insha Allah) is that it is a sign of colonial inferiority complex that we hold our leaders to an angel-vs-devil standard, resulting in a deep sense of insecurity and worthlessness. Sub-continental or Muslim leaders are not better, nor worse than the leaders of the West or the East. They are humans, let us study them as humans, applaud their nice deeds, and criticize their failings. This will go a long way towards rehabilitating the morale of the Ummah, and of other neo-colonized peoples.

Also, when a person dies, it is `game over`. Game, set and match - just report on it. Give death the dignity it deserves. Letting biases or hatreds spill over after death shows the non-objectivity of the hater, and is akin to those who mutilate dead bodies.

I was never a fan of Saddam, nor is he my hero, but I believed he deserved a fair shake, just as every person in history does. Nations that write their own history survive, those that let their enemies do it for them - are doomed to be subdued and lost in history.

Will be back tomorrow.

Akber sb,
by justifying saddam , youare encouraging dictatorship.It`s not fair.
one should always audious for injustice , whatever the circumstances are.
of course , he was the lion among the dictators.
however timing was roung and selected intionally to hurt Muslims.
Saudi Arab didn`t say a word!