1121 replies to this topic

[olli]

yes, the US army bombed lebanon and the places in the middle east. there werent really that justified, because bombing civillains is not necessary, but, using chemical warfare is against the geneva conventions, it is inhumane. bombs are pretty much instant death, the gas saddam used, was slow and agonising, but colateral damage should be avoided, but it is never going to be in war, lets face it.

what saddam did was inexcuseable and he deserved to die. in my opinion, george bush needs to be strapped up and whipped, then slapped acorss the face and sent on the streets as a hobo, because he is a retard.
my thoughts.
anybody seen farenheight 9/11?

Edited by olli, 05 January 2007 - 12:48 PM.

[Phoenix911]

Actualy americas and english when they invaded iraq aimed to target ONLY military targets and or threats, this may include fanatics that are wearing civilian clothing. But regaurdless if they attack you there a threat that needs taken care of.
Sure there is casultys that are innocent but u will get that in all wars it is un avoidable, and if u think it is then u are a moron.
The main differance is saddam aimed at targeting a certain group of peaple regaurdless they did no crime and he killed them and put them in mass graves, He killed men, women and children and also pregnate women.
He was as bad as hitler, hitler targeted jews for no reason other than he did not like them. Ans saddam did the same to the i think they was kurds? anyways that was un fogiveable and not right.

Americans and english and any self respecting goverment don't go around randomly killing peaple just because there tall, short, fat or beleave or think differently.

And israeli was far worse than america and english because alot fo there targets was n towns and citys and what they call military targets this often ment for mores civilian casualtys.
And again the lebanon goverment is actuly ran by an world wide known terroist faction or has links to them, This makes it hard to know who the civis are. Lebanon was pointless but we can't change that.

Iraqis alot of peaple welcomed the americas and english and thought of them as heros because saddam was evil and dd not care for his peaple all his cash for the county went in military of luxuarys for himself.
His palace was full of gold statues and other such crap all money used that should and could have been used on his peaple and make his county better.
And sure u do get some fanatics that loved saddam but they are the peaple that live in certain places that saddam actuly did look after ie: his hometown and so forth.
Also alot of the peaple as soo brainwashed into fearing saddam that they feel its there duty to attack americans and english simply because they fear him.

Anyways killing saddam was justified and dose not make us as bad as him we kill him = 1 man he killed 1000's of innocents.

[Capt.Drake]

This is indeed an interesting discussion
But Sadam is hangged for kill civilians randomly after a bombing and not for leading a war or whatever and the USA and so on killed people in a war

[olli]

Actualy americas and english when they invaded iraq aimed to target ONLY military targets and or threats, this may include fanatics that are wearing civilian clothing. But regaurdless if they attack you there a threat that needs taken care of.
Sure there is casultys that are innocent but u will get that in all wars it is un avoidable, and if u think it is then u are a moron.
The main differance is saddam aimed at targeting a certain group of peaple regaurdless they did no crime and he killed them and put them in mass graves, He killed men, women and children and also pregnate women.
He was as bad as hitler, hitler targeted jews for no reason other than he did not like them. Ans saddam did the same to the i think they was kurds? anyways that was un fogiveable and not right.

Americans and english and any self respecting goverment don't go around randomly killing peaple just because there tall, short, fat or beleave or think differently.

And israeli was far worse than america and english because alot fo there targets was n towns and citys and what they call military targets this often ment for mores civilian casualtys.
And again the lebanon goverment is actuly ran by an world wide known terroist faction or has links to them, This makes it hard to know who the civis are. Lebanon was pointless but we can't change that.

Iraqis alot of peaple welcomed the americas and english and thought of them as heros because saddam was evil and dd not care for his peaple all his cash for the county went in military of luxuarys for himself.
His palace was full of gold statues and other such crap all money used that should and could have been used on his peaple and make his county better.
And sure u do get some fanatics that loved saddam but they are the peaple that live in certain places that saddam actuly did look after ie: his hometown and so forth.
Also alot of the peaple as soo brainwashed into fearing saddam that they feel its there duty to attack americans and english simply because they fear him.

Anyways killing saddam was justified and dose not make us as bad as him we kill him = 1 man he killed 1000's of innocents.

im shit at history, and dont really know my facts, but i agree with you completely and i was trying to say that

[Creator]

no, but i think there is some satisfaction, because after all the 1000's of innocent children and men and women he painfully and slowly killed is wrong.

Yes, it was wrong. This is why americans had decided that killing of 60 000 men more will correct the situation. But then americans saw that situation does not want to be corrected. So, they had decided to kill yet another man. Yeah, it's just perfect.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

and they have to live with the emotional pain of loosing there mother/father/sisters/brothers

If a man has emotional pain - kill him. No man - no pain. Right? You are free to way "no, it's wrong", but this is exactly what is happening in reality.

do you know what ? i think it was too quick. i think his death should of been longer,so he suffered, like the innocent civilians.

Noooo, you're sadist.... death should of been longer..... You're true sadist.

At the end of the day if the crime deserves death it should be death, Not life in prison not any other crap.

Life in prison is better because it erases a man from memories. Now americans killed Saddam and did not notice that they've just creadted cult of Saddam. Hundreds of piligrims have already visited Saddam's grave. And it is only the begining.

yes, the US army bombed lebanon and the places in the middle east. there werent really that justified, because bombing civillains is not necessary, but, using chemical warfare is against the geneva conventions, it is inhumane.

Yeah, to kill a man with a poison is much more horrible that to kill thousands with bombs.

bombs are pretty much instant death

Hail to instant death! Instant death is good! Instant death is humanee! Instant death to everybody!

Edited by Creator, 05 January 2007 - 04:11 PM.

[olli]

creator, i like some of your sarcasim.

they dont dropp 1000's of bombs on one person do they? even if they did the first bomb would hit, and then its like instant vapourisation. if one bomb hits.. big explosion, evey one in the area is pretty much dead. some are horribly maimed, but it will happen. its the reality of war. i would rather be blown up in a bomb, than slowly killed by poison.

im not a sadist, i dont think it should happen to like every one. but the same should of happened to hitler, but he was a pussy fuck ,and he commited suicide. if you slowly gas 1000' of innocent people, because you dont like them. i think that is wrong. then when he dies, and his death is quick, he wont feel that pain. like the other 1000's of people did. if my family was gassed, i would got satisfaction out of seeing him die slowly, so he felt the pain, like my family went through. i wouldnt forgive him. cause im not religious, and dont believe that forgiving somebody for gassing your family is good. then he would of gotten away with it in my mind. saddam was probably hopeing for a quick death while he was sat in that prison, so he could die quick and painless, cause he was a coward.

Edited by olli, 05 January 2007 - 04:14 PM.

[Capt.Drake]

That's what I said before with other stuff beside killing Sadam, I for example would have left him in his hole for the rest of his live^^
And nobody said sth about why he was killed, he wasn't killed for starting a war or whatever he wasn't killed for using gas against the kurds he was killed cause he killed some hundred men without a fair treil not more

[Creator]

they dont dropp 1000's of bombs on one person do they? even if they did the first bomb would hit, and then its like instant vapourisation. if one bomb hits.. big explosion, evey one in the area is pretty much dead. some are horribly maimed, but it will happen. its the reality of war. i would rather be blown up in a bomb, than slowly killed by poison.

Is instant death so useful for health?

Edited by Creator, 05 January 2007 - 04:12 PM.

[olli]

i dont understand what you mean by that.

all i knw is saddam shouldnt of had an instant death. to make it fair. he doesnt have any human rights after he took away 1000's of human rights for no apparent reason, other than he didnt like them. so he shouldnt of been entitled to a humane death. cause he is not human, he is an animal.

[Phoenix911]

Creator u are blaming americans for the hanging os saddam but u are wrong, Sure the americans and english both backed that saddam was a tyrent and deserved punishment.
BUT it was his own peaple "iraqi" that actuly sentanced and did the hanging, America and england thinking that he deserves punishment dose not make them the judge or the execusioner(sp?)

[Pendaelose]

Creator u are blaming americans for the hanging os saddam but u are wrong, Sure the americans and english both backed that saddam was a tyrent and deserved punishment.
BUT it was his own peaple "iraqi" that actuly sentanced and did the hanging, America and england thinking that he deserves punishment dose not make them the judge or the execusioner(sp?)

Phoenix, that is really a fantastic point. It truely was his own people who sentenced him (not just propoganda, ask an Iraqi Sheite or Kurd how they felt about Saddam).

I've stressed before the huge difference between intentionaly killing civilans, and collateral deaths. Both are tragic, but they ARE NOT the same. The weapon used is not the point. Blown up, Gassed, Shot... they are all horrible. The differnce is who was it meant for? There is nothnig immoral about attacking a military target, and while collateral civilian deaths are tragic they are part of war.

However, targeting civilians for the prpose of killing civilians is NOT collateral, it is mass murder. Murder is pretty universly accepted as unaceptable for a reason.


The execution iteself raises a few points.

1. The choice for execution should be a necesisty, not revenge. The man could never be safely imprisoned for life, and just as he is a rally cry as a Martyr, he was a beacon of hope alive. As a historical example, they tried life in exile for Napoleon... it didn't work. I feel the same way about the domestic death penalty. The simple truth is that some people are too dangereous to be kept inprisoned for life. In such instances where the persons behavior is too violent to risk OR thier potential escape could carry grave political consequences they simply need to be executed. Not Revenge, just a utilitarian solution.

2. The execution itself was in bad taste. Saddam requested the firing squad because he believed it was more dignified than hanging. Hanging was one of the worst deaths posible in his eyes. I do beleive the execution was a nececity, but intentionaly degrading him with the hanging was a sad attempt to seek revenge. Seeking revenge, as oposed to fullfilling a situational necesity braught the executioners down to his level and is in itself a tragedy. The new Iraqi government dirtied its hands by not fullfillnig his request. Infact, this gives him more claim for martyrdom than smiply executing him for his crimes.

3. It was the will of the Iraqi people, of which more than 80% are Sheites or Kurds. The mourning are Soonies(sp?). But, as it was the Iraqi people who tried and executed him it brings to mind this: The acused should be tried impartialy, but no one can give a fair trial to anyone they consider a hero or a villian. While I agree the guilt was certain, he should have been tried by the international comunty. While many might say that denies the Kurds and Sheites the satisfaction, it should have never been about satisfaction. Justice is not revenge, and his trial before a judge and jury of victims crossed the line.


So, in the end, I would have executed him too, but it would have been for different reasons and performed without the stigma of vengence.

[Phoenix911]

I agree with everythign said personly i would have given him firing squad, i beleave all peaple should have the right to choose how there death penality be carried out (with in reason)

[Ubermedic]

anybody seen farenheight 9/11?

Yeah. I saw that stupid fat fucker parade around on-screen.
I left 15 minutes in.
I can't stand him.

saddam was probably hopeing for a quick death while he was sat in that prison, so he could die quick and painless, cause he was a coward.

Saddam was spending most of his time in prison praying, talking to the guards, and (Most likely) sleeping.
And he wanted the firing squad. Which I find to be an honorable death.

Soonies(sp?).

Sunnis. I think...

So, in the end, I would have executed him too, but it would have been for different reasons and performed without the stigma of vengence.

I would have kept him for a while. He's probably got valuable intel and knows more about these people than most.
And then after a certain amount of time give him the death he wants.

[olli]

yes praying... praying to a "god" to forgive him of his ways as he is about to die. so it will make it all better, and will all be forgotten in the eyes of his "god"...... is what he hopes.
who cares if his death was honourable, he just needed to die, any way possible.

lol why cant you stand michael moore? he just proves that bush is a retard. with lots of humor.

[Phoenix911]

yes praying... praying to a "god" to forgive him of his ways as he is about to die. so it will make it all better, and will all be forgotten in the eyes of his "god"...... is what he hopes.
who cares if his death was honourable, he just needed to die, any way possible.

lol why cant you stand michael moore? he just proves that bush is a retard. with lots of humor.

Actuly no, he thinks what he did was just and that his god already approves. In his last message that got posted on some iraqi website he said not to hate americans and that hate is the root of all evil, he then went on to say that he will be sitting on the right hand side of his god and so forth.
Altho u may think bad of him he really had mental issuse.

[olli]

and im supposed to feel sorry for him?

he thinks he will be at the right hand of god, but do you know what.. there is no god. imo. im sure no god would allow this. tbh all muslims how try to be martyrs are mental. they think that blowing up women/children etc will get them 40 virgins in paridise. as i say again, god is meant to be loving and kind etc, and im sure no god would reward suicide bombing.

[Phoenix911]

and im supposed to feel sorry for him?

he thinks he will be at the right hand of god, but do you know what.. there is no god. imo. im sure no god would allow this. tbh all muslims how try to be martyrs are mental. they think that blowing up women/children etc will get them 40 virgins in paridise. as i say again, god is meant to be loving and kind etc, and im sure no god would reward suicide bombing.

I am not saying u should feel sorry for him i am only giving reason for his actions, in his mind he did nto see it as "doing wrong" he thought it was just, It might have been part of his upbring and religion that also contributed to how he thought.
I am not saying what he did was right only saying that u should atlest try and understand shi actulg before you judge them, they was wrong but if u are on the jury u have to understand all sides.

And i am not saying there is or is not a god olli BUT just so you know the reason humans have free will is because god in all religions wanted humans to make there own mistakes, learn from then and punish the peaple doing crimes.
Because of this god if there is one dose not take part in any of these he simply watchs on.

[Ubermedic]

I can't stand Micheal Moore for the fact that although he makes a few valid points. All in all it's just him complaining about things and being a backward ass fuck. If bush is a "retard" as you say then Micheal is "King tardo".

And olli. People feel the need to believe there is something bigger than them.
To come to terms with things. To hide from things.
But in all truth if tommorow every human in the world accepted that death was unavoidable and came to terms with their fears then we would all stop fighting. The trouble is people have taken their Idols too far.
Vikings thought dying in battle would get them to Valhalla.
Christians thought the slaying of Muslims would get them in Gods Favor.
The Muslims thought blowing them selves to shit would get them 72 Virgins.
There is the problem.
People can't come to terms with things.

Edited by Ubermedic, 06 January 2007 - 08:45 PM.

[Creator]

all i knw is saddam shouldnt of had an instant death. to make it fair. he doesnt have any human rights after he took away 1000's of human rights for no apparent reason, other than he didnt like them. so he shouldnt of been entitled to a humane death. cause he is not human, he is an animal.

Yes, he did not have any rights to kill. But why do you think americans have rights to kill?

Creator u are blaming americans for the hanging os saddam but u are wrong

I'm not blaming americans for hanging of Saddam. I'm just showing you "another side of the medal". Americans executed Saddam because he killed 1000 kurds. But americans themselves killed 60 000 arabs. And they say it's ok. Americans are worse than Saddam because they killed more people.

BUT it was his own peaple "iraqi" that actuly sentanced and did the hanging

They did the hanging under american rule. They did what they were said.

I've stressed before the huge difference between intentionaly killing civilans, and collateral deaths. Both are tragic, but they ARE NOT the same. The weapon used is not the point. Blown up, Gassed, Shot... they are all horrible. The differnce is who was it meant for? There is nothnig immoral about attacking a military target, and while collateral civilian deaths are tragic they are part of war.

You are wrong. It's the same. The logical chain is:
1) Any war brings collateral deaths.
2) Americans know that any war brings collateral deaths.
3) Americans start a war.
4) Now sum 1st, 2nd and 3rd points. What will you get? The answer is: "Americans deliberately go kill civilians. They know about possible collateral deaths, but they start a war anyway".

The man could never be safely imprisoned for life

Why? Everything is possible.

he was a beacon of hope alive.

He IS much greater beacon of hope now. His death was sensation for islamic world. Now some people are able to introduce Saddam as a holy martyr who died for Allah from the hands of unfaithful ones. I'm afraid that in some years he will become al idol, like Abu Ul Wakhab.

Edited by Creator, 06 January 2007 - 10:19 PM.

[olli]

every one is in different minds about this arguement, i have heard so many opionoins, which is what they all all. no one is right here, there all opinions.
creator, americans dont deliberatly kill civillians, thats just crazy. it colleteral damage, in any war, weather it was a british, russian or australiain war. it will happen, because civillians live near millitary targets.