#1
mrs h wrote:
Sick isn’t it?
I can’t see why - (as they were obviously going to find him guilty and sentence him to death) they didn’t just blow his head off when they found him in that hole.
That sounds harsh, but actually I can’t help wondering if some of the ‘insurgents’ weren’t just really afraid of what might happen if somehow he returned to power? If he’d been shot dead on day one maybe things would have been very different.
I’m totally opposed to the death penalty in all cases and regardless of circumstances btw - just saying ‘what if’? …
Posted on Sun, 5 November 2006 at 11:35
#2
mr self destruct wrote:
I don’t think they should ever have trimmed his beard - his ‘comedy tramp’ look was much more amusing.
Posted on Sun, 5 November 2006 at 11:50
#3
mrs h wrote:
Poor taste, Sammy, very poor taste …
*shakes head sadly*
mr self destruct wrote:
Given the right incentive I would be prepared to prance around a bit in a hedgehog suit.
That always cheers me up! :D
Posted on Sun, 5 November 2006 at 12:19
#4
mr self destruct wrote:
You mean you didn’t chuckle when he was brought out of his hole sporting a big comedy tramp beard?
Posted on Sun, 5 November 2006 at 12:21
#5
mrs h wrote:
No. I felt sorry for him and it made me cry :(
I admit he is / was evil and needs locking up forever, but when they pulled him out of there all I saw was this terrified old man. It really upset me.
Posted on Sun, 5 November 2006 at 12:26
#6
mr self destruct wrote:
Posted on Sun, 5 November 2006 at 12:27
#7
CS (Colin S) wrote:
I like the fact that he’s getting hanged and not shot. Hanging means people can throw rotten fruit at him ;) and he can starve to death. :)
Sick bastard! :mad:
@ Mrs H - You seriously felt sorry for him?!?!
@ Sam - Yeah, his tramp look was wayyy better!! :D
Colinx
Posted on Sun, 5 November 2006 at 12:35
#8
mrs h wrote:
It was the same when those 10 year olds killed Jamie Bulger. I hated what they had done, and don’t think my heart wasn’t broken for little Jamie and his family and community, but seeing crowds of grown men throwing bricks and baying like animals at the van made me sick. The boys were totally fucked up, but they were still 10 year olds, and for so-called mature adults to behave like that made me want to vomit. :(
@Colin? - Just because somebody is a deranged power-crazed murdering bastard doesn’t mean that it’s ok for other people / society to act the same. If it’s wrong to kill people then it’s wrong to kill them. End of.
I felt pity for him, rather than sorry for him. I was glad he’d been caught, but then the way that they chose to ridicule him was just sick and entirely gratuitous. It didn’t benefit anybody in any way - it was entirely about humiliating him. And the only reason to do that to somebody is either for sadistic pleasure or revenge, and that’s just wrong. It doesn’t matter who it is or what they’ve done.
I was once in tears for the russian guy who killed and ate 50 men, women and children. He was in a 6’ X 6’ cell awaiting the death penalty, he’d been there 15 or 20 years and no-one would buy him any batteries for his radio. That’s the same thing, it’s not about justice it’s about vengeance. It turned out that as a boy he’d lived in a town that had been hit so hard by famine that they all ate corpses. Human, rat, whatever they could find laying around. It fucked his head up totally, hence the crimes. The victims are dead already, so how does anyone benefit from not letting him listen to the radio, which was his only posession?
Posted on Sun, 5 November 2006 at 13:14
#9
Lola* wrote:
i don’t see what would be achieved by having him murdered. obviously what he did was awful but killing him will just make a martyr of him and inspire those who are against democracy in Iraq…this isn’t going to solve any of the problems in Iraq or end the Civil war that is resulting in so many deaths each day.
Since March 2003 it seems that more than 650,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq. I don’t know how accurate this is but I bet it’s not too far off…
http://www.uua.org/news/2006/061025_deathtoll.html
I wonder who Bush is going to go after next seeing as the man who tried to kill his dad will be gone.
Posted on Sun, 5 November 2006 at 14:38
#10
mr self destruct wrote:
@ Ci?: It won’t be North Korea or Iran - North Korea have stood up for themselves and shown the US not to fuck with them, and Iran are pretty confident too…going ahead with uranium enrichment and currently testing various rockets! They’ll probably pick on Cuba now that Castro’s on the sidelines…
Posted on Sun, 5 November 2006 at 15:01
#11
CS (Colin S) wrote:
Ci? wrote:
I wonder who Bush is going to go after next seeing as the man who tried to kill his dad will be gone.
UK maybe?
Seeing as Blair is practically his bitch?
“Tony, I want to invade your country.”
“Ok Mr. Bush.”
:rolleyes:
Colinx
Posted on Sun, 5 November 2006 at 16:05
#12
mrs h wrote:
@Colin? - :D Probably. I’ve always been surprised that they never bothered to include Ireland in their ‘War on terror’! :p
@Ci? I didn’t mean that they should have murdered him, just that the subsequent events (including the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi’s) might have taken a different course if they had. I don’t know what course, but certainly a lot of previous judges and witnesses would still be alive to tell the tale, and people who were too frightened to stand against him even after he was in prison wouldn’t have had anything to worry about.
I could understand an Iraqi killing him, but I can’t understand how any society can support a death penalty. If someone killed one of my kids I might well be tempted to kill them through grief and rage - but I would do it knowing it was wrong and I would expect to spend the rest of my life in prison.
@Sam - The guy’s a paranoid nutter. I don’t think logic will play a part in it, but I wouldn’t be in the least bit surprised if he went for North Korea pretty soon. They have shown that they can create a nuclear explosion, but as far as any intelligence can see they haven’t yet developed any actual warheads that will carry any further than South Korea. I don’t expect that Bush will give a damn about the South Koreans. He’ll just want to knock the shit out of the North before they make any more ‘progress’, and now that China have withdrawn their support and protection GWB has got bugger all to lose…
Posted on Sun, 5 November 2006 at 16:22
#13
mrs h wrote:
Bugger! Just read that they now think North Korea might have mid-range capability and could reach Japan! :S
The North Koreans have Enola Gay!!! :eek:
Edit: Having said that, they thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction :rolleyes:
Posted on Sun, 5 November 2006 at 16:46
#14
Lola* wrote:
mrs h wrote:
@Ci? I didn’t mean that they should have murdered him
oh i know what you meant…i wasn;t thinking about what you said when i wrote that…
Posted on Sun, 5 November 2006 at 21:48
#15
deadsetgav wrote:
mrs h wrote:
The North Koreans have Enola Gay!!! :eek:
Yes - but its just a ringtone… simply text OMD to 5511 for the polyphonic, texts cost £3 and normal network charges will apply
Posted on Mon, 6 November 2006 at 08:27
#16
Igor Belanov wrote:
Posted on Mon, 6 November 2006 at 08:32
#17
Igor Belanov wrote:
Oh, and I think the idea of putting Saddam on trial before killing was similar to the Nuremburg trials, an attempt to demonstrate to the Iraqi people just how brutal his rule was, and that they’ll be better off without him. It’s not really a legal process, just a political decision. I’m not sure what good executing him will do, as there was very little chance of him coming back to power anyway in the present situation.
Posted on Mon, 6 November 2006 at 08:36
#18
buffalo-boy wrote:
In this case i think i’m actually FOR capital punishment - he is being used as an example because of his crimes against humanity. On Saddam i think its justified. Its not like he’s going to move to a council estate in Rotherham and live out th rest of his days in peace.
Posted on Mon, 6 November 2006 at 09:03
#19
Igor Belanov wrote:
Er, they could have put him in a prison for the remainder of his life?
Or maybe living in Rotherham would be a greater punishment.
Posted on Mon, 6 November 2006 at 09:33
#20
Lola* wrote:
and when he’s in jail/rotherham for the remainder of his they could make him renounce his political beliefs or something…
Posted on Mon, 6 November 2006 at 09:46
#21
Igor Belanov wrote:
Does he have any political beliefs- I’m not aware of any?
Posted on Mon, 6 November 2006 at 09:52
#22
Lola* wrote:
he believes that he’s right all the time…
(maybe i should have said beliefs rather than political beliefs)
Posted on Mon, 6 November 2006 at 10:02
#23
mrs h wrote:
buffalo-boy wrote:
In this case i think i’m actually FOR capital punishment - he is being used as an example because of his crimes against humanity. On Saddam i think its justified. Its not like he’s going to move to a council estate in Rotherham and live out th rest of his days in peace.
He’s going to be killed because he murdered thousands of Iraqis. If that is a natural course of events then it will be George Bush and Tony Blair next, as they have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Let’s see if ‘justice’ is done, shall we? Even though we all know it won’t be.
The death penalty has nothing to do with justice, it’s about trying to make sure that civilians know who’s boss.
@Gav - :D
Posted on Mon, 6 November 2006 at 11:18
#24
Igor Belanov wrote:
Hmmm, I do think actually it is Iraqis killing Iraqis for the most part. Bush and Blair are just responsible for creating this situation with their incompetence. I have noticed their reluctance to deal with the equally nasty medieval-style religious monarchy of Saudi Arabia- I think you can probably look at Fahrenheit 9/11 for the reasons…
Posted on Mon, 6 November 2006 at 11:38
#25
mrs h wrote:
Not seen it yet.
Saudi Arabia is a very very bad example of how to run a country, I’ll give you that - but that doesn’t mean Bush’n’Blair should get involved anyway. In fact they shouldn’t - God alone knows what might happen!
Wouldn’t it be good if we could just open our doors to all the non-muslims and homosexuals of Saudi Arabia, and then send all our bad people there for a short sharp shock! :D
*goes away to start a medieval style religious monarchy in Gracious Me*
Posted on Mon, 6 November 2006 at 12:11
#26
Dennis wrote:
My mind tells me that an eye for an eye is wrong but…
My gut tells me that maybe it’s the right way to go.
Who knows?
Still, I was shocked that Saddam was sentenced to death as I thought they’d go for a much less controvesial “slam him in the nick and throw away the key” approach.
Posted on Mon, 6 November 2006 at 13:12
#27
Misanthropologist (d) wrote:
mrs h wrote:
He’s going to be killed because he murdered thousands of Iraqis.
I’m not certain, but apparently that’snot the case. He’s sentenced to death for ‘crimes against humanity’ for ordering the deaths of 148 Shi’ites. That (so far as I can tell from the reports) is all he’s been shown to be guilty of. Interesting?
It’s worth pointing out that he’s not on trial by the Americans, he’s on trial by the Iraqis.
Quote (author unknown):
The death penalty has nothing to do with justice, it’s about trying to make sure that civilians know who’s boss.
The current Iraqi system of law was set up by Sadam Hussein himself (instead of the previous system which was based on religion), apparently in an attempt to modernise Iraq. With that in mind, your last comment is sort of ironic… ;)
I don’t agree with the death penalty, but I don’t agree that it has nothing to do with justice, either.
Posted on Mon, 6 November 2006 at 13:56
#28
mrs h wrote:
I know perfectly well he’s on trial by the Iraqis, which is precisely why from the second he was caught there was no way he wasn’t going to be killed. They set out to prove what they could, but we all know perfectly well that he has instigated the murder of thousands of Iraqis over decades.
I don’t see the irony in the second bit - that was my point! Unless you thought I meant that it was the Americans trying to show who was boss, in which case I didn’t make my point very well :( I was just saying that wherever in the world there is a death penalty it seems to be a case of the powers that be making a big public point. Which isn’t justice, it’s politics.
Did you know that in Saudi Arabia they chop your feet off for having gay sex? :S
Anyway, how the hell are you? :D
Posted on Mon, 6 November 2006 at 14:17
#29
Misanthropologist (d) wrote:
I didn’t mean to suggest that you didn’t know. There just seems to be a tendency for people to think that it’s the Americans running the trial.
There’s still an indefinite appeal to be had, and apparently it’s impossible to be executed in iraq when you are 70 or over. He is 69. It’s potentially possible for him to live out his life in prison, while still being given the death sentence.
The irony is that _Sadam Hussein_ was the ‘boss’, and he is being convicted under his own legal system. He didn’t create the death sentence, of course, but the fact is he has been found guilty and punishable by death under Law that he was responsible for instigating. If you’d wanted to campaign against the death penalty in Iraq, the person you’d have had to have gone to would have been Sadam Hussein.
Posted on Mon, 6 November 2006 at 14:56
#30
CS (Colin S) wrote:
Me and my friend are talking about Saddam’s execution, he think’s it’s illegal because Hussein is a prisoner of War…
“Under UN Law they can’t execute a prisoner of war or a political prisoner.. nor can they hand over a POW to be executed, they’d be breaking their own laws” - From my friend Shiv. :)
Personally, I’m confused. :)
Posted on Mon, 6 November 2006 at 15:07
