Well. He's Dead. - Page 2

Pyre · 01-06-2007, 04:26 PM

It is on a camera phone, but this is the best I found http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuP4WBk17Lw

Godslayer Jillian · 01-06-2007, 06:51 PM

In a disclaimer fashion, I'm not trying to martyrize Saddam. I hate the guys that have been recently done that, but I wanted to point out Saddam's positive things.

Ictum · 01-06-2007, 07:02 PM

And another martyr is born, great job!

They should've broke him down mentally to the point of no return, then release him and let the pathetic being continue to "live" on his own. That would be the best way to prevent him from becoming a martyr, and also the most suitable considering some of the things that he has done.

Splintered · 01-06-2007, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ictum

And another martyr is born, great job!

They should've broke him down mentally to the point of no return, then release him and let the pathetic being continue to "live" on his own. That would be the best way to prevent him from becoming a martyr, and also the most suitable considering some of the things that he has done.

That vaguely reminded me of what O'Brien was trying to do to Winston in 1984.

Circle V · 01-06-2007, 08:58 PM

Vaguely? Hell, that's exactly what happened in 1984.

Godslayer Jillian · 01-06-2007, 09:04 PM

I have no idea who O'Brien is. o_O
What happened in 1984?

Pyre · 01-06-2007, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Circle V

Vaguely? Hell, that's exactly what happened in 1984.

Splintered meant that it vaguely reminds him of the incident, not that what O'Brien did was vaguely try to martyrize someone.

Circle V · 01-06-2007, 09:24 PM

I meant that it immediately and precisely reminded me of the incident.

1984 the novel, Jillian.

Godslayer Jillian · 01-06-2007, 09:26 PM

I was thinking about Conan O'Brien...

Pyre · 01-06-2007, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

I was thinking about Conan O'Brien...

That is what I thought, too xD Don't feel bad. I knew it was wrong, but that is what I thought.

I didn't catch the allusion because I have yet to read that book.

Splintered · 01-06-2007, 10:40 PM

I'd explain it, but that gives away the book.

What I meant, for the record was:
What Ictum said we should do reminded me of parts of what O'Brien said they were going to do.

asta_tintora · 01-09-2007, 02:45 PM

Hm, well, it's better than coughing up your own organs for weeks on end from poisoning. I find it interesting that they didn't cover his head, considering I've read that the eyes occasionally pop out from the pressure. (I'm not sure of the truthfullness of such a statement.)

Hm, really, any way he would have been dealt with would have rendered him a martyr in some sense. If he were alive, he would have probably been used as a poster child for the West's cruel intentions.

Truly, I wonder if this is a battle between two modes of thought on how the world should be run. West vs. Middle Eastern with profits being tied up in it. Everyone is interested in resources, let's not kid ourselves. What I find interesting is that, the whole appeal of martyrdom usually drops when people have enough food to eat and a somewhat stable environment about them.

emeraldlonewoulf · 01-09-2007, 07:55 PM

excellent, and insightful, point.

Tirananniel · 01-11-2007, 02:49 AM

I don't care a lot. I watched some of the stuff leading up to the exicution on the TV with my mum. Actually, I really actually felt sorry for him. I'm not saying that what he did was okay, or anything, I have a godfather that's in Bagdad at the moment actually, but he really just seemed like such a normal person in all the pictures, and he looked like a person that's just given up.

I don't know if this makes any sence to anyone, but yeah...he just...I don't even know how to explain it any further...*sigh* I also really wish I would've watched to hanging.

Also, I'm sick of people saying all this shit about him carrying a Quaron(sp?I know it's spelt with a qu atleast.), and saying that it was stupid, and pointless. You know, he has his religion, and that's what he believes in. He thought that carrying that with him would help him, big deal. I bet if a Christian was being sentenced to death, they would be carrying a bible around with them everywhere.

Tirananniel · 01-11-2007, 02:50 AM

Actually when I read that over, I guess I care alot about it.

Cyntrox · 01-11-2007, 03:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tirananniel

*sigh* I also really wish I would've watched to hanging.

Here is a vid...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...+hussein&hl=en

Tirananniel · 01-11-2007, 03:55 AM

Gah sleepy endused typo. Extreme typo. wouldn't've* I think that works. If not. wouldn't have*

*sigh* I really should sleep, but my teeth hurt SO bad...someone's gonna think I'm mental for saying that, but they do hurt. Really bad.

Tirananniel · 01-11-2007, 03:56 AM

Emeraldlonewoulf, I LOVE YOUR SIGNATURE!! Oh my god, you have no idea how much I love that.

nuksaa · 01-11-2007, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

I don't know how accurate these are, but here are some of the good things Saddam did for Iraq. These are policies he implemented in the 60's and 70's:

After 4 years in exile for a failed assasination attempt on General Qassim: In 1963, a group of Baathist army officers tortured and assassinated General Qassim. This was done on Iraqi television. They also mutilated many of Qassim's devotees and showed their bodies (in close up) on the nightly news for more than one night. Saddam, hearing the news, quickly rushed back to Iraq to become involved in the revolution. And involved, he was, as both an interrogator and torturer at the infamous "Palace of the End", in the basement of the former palace of King Faisal.

Moving quickly to consolidate his power, he called a major Baathist meeting on July 22, 1979. During the meeting, various family members and other Hussein devotees urged that the party be "cleansed". Hussein then read a list of names and asked that they step outside. Once there, they are taken into custody. A high-ranking member of the Revolutionary Command, the head of the labor unions, the leading Shiite member of the Command, and twenty (20) others are then systematically and personally killed by Hussein and his top party officials. During the next few days, reports indicate that as many as 450 other military officers, deputy prime ministers, and "non-party faithful" were rounded up and killed. This purge ensured Hussein's consolidation of power in Iraq.

I doubt the accuracy of those good things Saddam supposedly performed. Even then, he more likely took the glory for others work.

I do not see Saddam becoming a martyr. I doubt anyone using him as a rallying cry. His killing just adds a smidgen more data for those who believe the US is establishing a puppet government.

CptSternn · 01-12-2007, 03:39 AM

Even if he does not achieve martyrdom right now, you can bet as the war progresses, and it will, over the next 10 years the next generations of Iraqis who grew up in this conflict who look back at their happy childhood under Sadaam who never knew political oppression because it was before their time or didn't effect the average family in Iraq will know the pains of war because of the american government.

They will know their childhood was rocked when their happy lives were ripped from them and their families killed by invading forces, all to rid the country of a dictaor who they never felt was that bad to begin with. Then they will look back and say in comparison to what we have now, Sadaam WAS a good leader and it was the americans who wrecked our country.

I'm pretty sure if you ask any Iraqi now if they preferred their quiet life prior to the invasion and now, you can guess what they will say. As we speak, three generations of Iraqis are now solidifying themselves against america, while their surrounding neighbours in the region look upon their comrades and feel anger themselves, much like americans looked upon britian in WW2 when germany bobmed england. They feel solidarity towards their brethern, ones who look like them and share their culture.

As we speak Sadaam is becoming a martyr, and he will one day stand in history as the man who held Iraq together as one under the strain of various groups which we know reside in that country - a feat that hundreds of thousands of american and british troops combine plus billions of dollars has yet to do, and will ever do.

Eplefe · 01-14-2007, 04:04 AM

Well, I feel it's been maken a favour, wich might actually backfire really on the people of Iraq, because he was a really bad person and all of that shit, yes, he did a lot he shouldn't have, killed, and tortured, and things like that. But Iraq is a bomb waiting to explode, there are a lot of different kinds of people who are just waiting for an oppurtunity to fly at each other, Saddam kept them from doing that, and now, the US is keeping them from doing that. When the US gets out of there, what do you think is gonna happen? There's probably gonna be a huge civil war, were they slaughter each other, and they all end up in misery, then there will be someone who will take responsebility. And end up as a dictator, who kills and tortures and... Well, you see where I'm going? It's really not that big a favour we're doing them, by removing him from the power. Yes, it could help them get a democracy. But they're not like us (And I do NOT mean uncivilized or anything in that matter, I mean that they have a totally different culture), and they could never think of lowering themselves to "the others" standards, so as long as some "tribes" (if you can even call them that) think they're better then others, there will always be conflicts there, and they will end up killing each other..

nuksaa · 01-14-2007, 08:02 PM

Quote:

I'm pretty sure if you ask any Iraqi now if they preferred their quiet life prior to the invasion and now, you can guess what they will say.

That Saddam was a murderous beast, not quite sure what quiet life you are speaking. Something to do with 8 year war with Iran followed by an invasion of Kuwait which has lead to this current state. They may think that of General Qassam but the only group thinking of that about Saddam will be those supporters around Tikrit.

Quote:

he will one day stand in history as the man who held Iraq together as one under the strain of various groups which we know reside in that country

True statement. How was that achieved? He understood the people in his country and their mindset of their religious beliefs. Rising from poverty, he understood why his fellow poor were hesitant to rise up against their oppressor or ruler who did not hear their voice. His actions were to butcher his people and their families so they would fear the reprecussions he would impose.

Why is the US and the allied forces having issues controlling a handful of provinces, which includes a large portion of Baghdad? Because we are hesitant to use such force to bend the will of the people.

CptSternn · 01-21-2007, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nuksaa

That Saddam was a murderous beast, not quite sure what quiet life you are speaking. Something to do with 8 year war with Iran followed by an invasion of Kuwait which has lead to this current state. They may think that of General Qassam but the only group thinking of that about Saddam will be those supporters around Tikrit.

Once again us propaganda. I'm not saying he was a nice guy, but there has yet to be any solid evidence he killed as many people as they claim he did. What kills me is the same people who claimed there were WMD's are the same people they based these stories on as well. If it has been proven there were no WMD's, then why do people continue to claim he killed so many people when there has so far been no evidence to prove this?

Quote:

True statement. How was that achieved? He understood the people in his country and their mindset of their religious beliefs. Rising from poverty, he understood why his fellow poor were hesitant to rise up against their oppressor or ruler who did not hear their voice. His actions were to butcher his people and their families so they would fear the reprecussions he would impose.

Wait, are you talking about bush or sadaam here? Looking at that statement one can only guess.

Quote:

Why is the US and the allied forces having issues controlling a handful of provinces, which includes a large portion of Baghdad? Because we are hesitant to use such force to bend the will of the people.

Actually the us tried, and failed. They are still trying, and still failing. With the civilain body count hitting six figures and you claiming the us is using restraint, thats just funny. How many dead civilians does it take to say the us is not 'being hesitant'?

Also, a new fun fact for you - who at the end of the day has killed, or should we say is responsible for killing, more Iraqis - sadaam or bush?

If you add up even the large numbers sadaam is accused of killing over the past few DECADES the number doesn't hold a candle to the amount of Iraqis that have died at the hands of american troops led by bush in the past couple years.

the_dude · 01-22-2007, 09:48 AM

actually there were a lot of on record WMD's (including biotechs) that ended up going to syria before they caught him. ofcourse, they're not accounted for now, but they were when he was still 'free.'

what i don't understand is why they brought up so many past charges on him? i was reading some stuff on cnn about him, and they brought up a crime from 1982 or something. his caravan was attacked in a shiite village, so he ordered the executions of like 47 of them afterwards. at the same time that was happening, don rumsfeld was in iraq talking with saddam and giving him support against iraq. why didn't he get tried for it then?

america's overseas policies seem a bit backwards to me?

Budweiser69 · 01-22-2007, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_dude

what i don't understand is why they brought up so many past charges on him? i was reading some stuff on cnn about him, and they brought up a crime from 1982 or something. his caravan was attacked in a shiite village, so he ordered the executions of like 47 of them afterwards. at the same time that was happening, don rumsfeld was in iraq talking with saddam and giving him support against iraq. why didn't he get tried for it then?

saddam was tried by the iraqi government, not the united states. shortly after his capture, he was handed over legally to the interim government, though american forces held him physically for obvious reasons. the attempted assassination on saddam back then was carried out by members of the islamic dawa party, which resulted in saddam using the event as an excuse to crush a large amount of dissident party members not involved. the islamic dawa party now makes up a large portion of elected government in iraq. though the united states lent assistance in uncovering bodies of these massacres and retrieving evidence, it was the iraqi transitional government that established a special tribunal to try saddam for these things.