Sadam Hussein possibly caught!
- Thread starter tree
- Start date
That is by Buddha. I didn't want to underline it was him, as everything overly religious (hey - he was just a philosophist) could have negatives sound for some.. I think I got that from www.dailyzen.com
And staying in the eastern mind...
"Do not conquer the world with force,
For force only causes resistance.
Thorns spring up when an army passes.
Years of misery follow a great victory.
Do only what needs to be done.
Without using violence." - Lao Tzu
And staying in the eastern mind...
"Do not conquer the world with force,
For force only causes resistance.
Thorns spring up when an army passes.
Years of misery follow a great victory.
Do only what needs to be done.
Without using violence." - Lao Tzu
ScottW said:Did someone say.. "Public Execution!"
Did anyone tell you you're a genius???
I totally agree, after what that guy has done in the past. Those who say he's not a threat, or wasn't, have very little knowledge on his background and what he's done in the past.
Just cause he isn't using a radio or cell phone to talk to someone, giving them orders, doesn't mean he isn't in control. There is such a thing as talking with someone, you know...face to face...then sending them to tell the others.
Oh, and let us not forget about those ancient things called a pen and paper (pencil if you want to get pre-historic).
Muzgal said:
Zammy-Sam said:
That kind of thinking (the inhumane BS) is the reason why we have the problems in our world today. Hey, go kill some people, then claim insanity so you're thrown in the slammer for a couple of years...then certified sane and released. Some may spend a couple of decades living for free at the taxpayer's expense, or the rest of their lives...what does that actually prove or do?
You can actually get more time in jail for having a small quantity of dope on your person than you can for manslaughter...now, tell me that's not a big joke?
Inhumane? Commiting genocide and killing women, children, and even family members isn't inhumane? Can you say Little Hitler anyone? You care to tell the scores of people (and their families) he killed that punishing Sadam is inhumane. How about all the people who survived the holocaust? Sorry, even though Hitler killed all those people we can't do anything, it'd be inhumane. How about if someone killed you mother or father, maybe a brother or sister, or even your child? I know you'd think twice on that position then; but hey, you didn't know these victims of theirs, so who cares; right?
You kill someone in anything other than self defense, or by a legitimate accident; then you loose you life.
Some guy rapes a woman? Well, introduce a certain body part to a sharp knife then. The mere thought will discrouage most men from even thinking about it.
Beat a kid? Well, introduce that guy to general population at the local pen; see how he likes getting his but kicked by someone much bigger than him.
Molest a kid? Well send them to general population at that prision and ensure that Bubba, the 350# guy be his cell mate...
Hell, at least the vast majority of criminals have some decency, enough to beat the living crap out of others who hurt children. Shows they know some limits.
adambyte
Registered
As much as Saddam may deserve an execution, it's still a bad idea to kill him. You're just going to make a martyr out of him, and then heighten the level of violence. Same goes for Bin Laden, if/when he's captured. Death may be punishment, but it also glorifies them in the eyes of the followers.
If you think that he was a major threat now, and you want to make a martyr out of him???
Take him, and lock him up, and forget about him, and history might remeber him (in time) as a fool. Take him, and make a martyr out of him, and some people will remeber him as a hero.
Take him, and lock him up, and forget about him, and history might remeber him (in time) as a fool. Take him, and make a martyr out of him, and some people will remeber him as a hero.
Zammy-Sam
Desertchild
mdnky said:
After reading this, I believe you agree if I say: every woman, man or child of the iraqi population that lost a family member because of US rockets has the right to see Bushs head role.
Hmmmm...
Or is this different since US is the good guy and Saddam is the bad guy and hunting a bad guy will take losses?
Sometimes it can be darn helpful to see both sides and leave the movie perspective of a clear bad guy and a clear good guy. I mentioned this in an other thread: this is far away from the reality.
I don't say Saddam shouldn't be punished. But using his methodes will be the same thing he did. I believe he felt right (on his own way) about murdering some ppl. Now, what is the difference to your situation, Michael? You feel right about it too and you use his methodes..
I bet this is not what you wanna be, right?
And beside that, the annoying point of the execution lied on PUBLIC. This doesn't mean that I agree to any other execution. But to be honest: I would love his head to role, but I know this is not right... Maybe I am just too moral. Who knows?
Arden
Where mah "any" keys at?
The problem is that Saddam killed his people willingly as a method of instilling fear in them, and we killed them because we were fighting an enemy. We don't just go into another country and start shooting civilians left and right (officially); if we're fighting a militant force, we invariably end up killing civilians as "casualties of war." It sucks, but it happens.
Now I'm not saying that this is cool or anything. But when we go to war, people die, and they who knew those people want those responsible brought to justice. The Iraqis may or may not enjoy being free of Saddam's clutches, but there are still many either loyal to him or simply anti-America who are blowing themselves up and murdering our soldiers. And if given the chance, they would come here and put a bullet through each of our foreheads. And executing Saddam publicly is only going to fuel that fire.
Now I'm not saying that this is cool or anything. But when we go to war, people die, and they who knew those people want those responsible brought to justice. The Iraqis may or may not enjoy being free of Saddam's clutches, but there are still many either loyal to him or simply anti-America who are blowing themselves up and murdering our soldiers. And if given the chance, they would come here and put a bullet through each of our foreheads. And executing Saddam publicly is only going to fuel that fire.
Muzgal
Registered
mdnky said:
Firstly, there was no need to be facetious, just because your opinion is different to mine doesn't mean I am stupid!
Secondly it appears that you have very little idea of the situation here. It was not I who said that he was not a threat whilst in hiding. It was the US army, they said it was obvious that he was not running any operations. I do not deny that his being free meant that some people had something to fight for.
Thirdly I think it can be said that Saddam was not a threat to the west before the war, and it can be said that he was unlikely to become one. That is not the same as saying he didn't want to be one! It is true that it was thought that he had 'WMD' though I think that it can be said that either there were none, or the war has only resulted in them being distributed amongst terrorists.
Fourthly you seem to imply that Saddam would have given those weapons to terrorists, or that he was in charge of anything more than the resistance to our occupation, that he was involved in Muslim fundamentalist terrorism. That is, if you didn't know, outright nonsense.
Fifthly I agree Saddam probably deserves to die. However I still say that killing someone, particularly publicly is not morally right. Our claim to the moral high ground will only be further tarnished in Arab eyes if we commit such a gross act of hypocrisy. On a related note I would like to point out that offending muslims is contrary to the 'war on terrorism'.
There are two ways to proceed in this 'war', either kill every muslim [or at least every fundamentalist, but then how can you tell the difference, and how do you know someone isn't saying they aren't muslim...] in the world, or to start listening, practising what we preach and start trying to see our actions through the eyes of our 'enemy'. Likewise I agree on the martyr issue, locking him up and forgetting about him is probably best idea.
"Many that live deserve death, and some that die deserve life, can you give it to them?" JRR Tolkein
Muzgal
Registered
mdnky said:
And what does killing them prove or do? It doesn't prove anything to them, because they are dead. To other people it proves that if you have the power of life and death over someone it is right for you to decide whether or not they should live. It proves that violence proves things, and that violence is a way to get things done. It proves that life is not sacred, and that the powers of good stoop so easily to the methods of evil.
Also before we get too righteous here I would point out that [whilst I am totally disgusted by what that man did, and know he deserves to die] it was not the first time 'WMD' were tested unessecarily upon a people. To remind you of a situation in some ways not so different I need say two words only; 'Hiroshima' and 'Nagasaki'.
Arden said:
I totally agree up to the last sentence. It could fuel the fire, then again it may not. That's something that's debatable. Regardless, it's an issue that has to be dealt with. Maybe it would have been better if the SOFs had tossed that grenade into the hole he was hiding, that would have taken care of the issue right then and there. Maybe not, but regardless we have to know when to say enough is enough and hold our ground. Alot of Americans died trying to find that guy and liberate that country, just as in years past in other wars and conflicts.