Saddam Hussein sentenced to death [Archive] - Lea Halalela Lion King Forum

Ghamu

November 5th, 2006, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by Kovu The Lion
Lol...

Inhumain...Or however it's spelt.

Just like that one group in USA that are tryign to make sure the captured prisoners from Iraq are treated fairly, get lawyers, fed properly, nice clothing etc.

While our soldiers in Iraq are being beheaded, Killed, massacered, slaughtered infront of others. Hmm just makes me wonder why we should treat them nice if they don't treat our soldiers right :lol:

You don't recall Abu Ghurayb, I take it? Or the concentration camp on Cuba? Or the 'secret prisons' US intelligence keep around the world where prisoners are stripped of the rights guaranteed them by the Geneva convention? Torture of unlawful/illegal combatants, which was approved by Washington?

I haven't really kept up to date with Hussein's trial, but as I recall, the crimes he's now been found guilty of are ones he took care of with the military aid he got from the US.

I really don't care much for his execution. It feels more like 'red meat to the mob' more than anything else. *shrug*

Nephilim

November 5th, 2006, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by Kovu The Lion
Lol...

Inhumain...Or however it's spelt.

Just like that one group in USA that are tryign to make sure the captured prisoners from Iraq are treated fairly, get lawyers, fed properly, nice clothing etc.

While our soldiers in Iraq are being beheaded, Killed, massacered, slaughtered infront of others. Hmm just makes me wonder why we should treat them nice if they don't treat our soldiers right :lol:
Kovu

Don't worry about how the USA treats PoWs; I think perhaps the USA military should try being humane. You know, hyping their soldiers up and sending them off to slaughter men, women and children, all civilians, in little villages doesn't seem all that right to me.

Also, I agree fully with what Ghamu said.

Guntur

November 5th, 2006, 08:17 PM

I think he deserve what he does, and I think the situation remain the same or worse after his execution. Tommorow headlines, Civil War in Iraq.

TX-101

November 5th, 2006, 09:10 PM

YES! Hang the bastard! Hang him high!!

Darkslash

November 5th, 2006, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by Nephilim
Don't worry about how the USA treats PoWs; I think perhaps the USA military should try being humane. You know, hyping their soldiers up and sending them off to slaughter men, women and children, all civilians, in little villages doesn't seem all that right to me.
You have much to learn about the military. You could perhaps start by talking with one of us who are military members... I can assure you that we are not in the business of "slaughtering."

Daniel

November 5th, 2006, 10:10 PM

to be honest, i think he should suffer more

a lot more

but hey, that's just me...

Nephilim

November 5th, 2006, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by Darkslash
You have much to learn about the military. You could perhaps start by talking with one of us who are military members... I can assure you that we are not in the business of "slaughtering."

Never read any of the transcripts of what went on in the Nam war? I know there was one from the Iraq war too, recently.

Sadiki

November 5th, 2006, 11:05 PM

everything is allowed in War and love is not really how it should be but it is that way.

No one can say that everyone does torture or humiliate prisoners in US prisons not even most but some do, same with small villages... most of soldiers do as told but some groups don't play with the rules... that is just known fact.. when cat is away mice are crawling on a table and ofcourse the enemy does the same.

what comes to sentence for Saddam... it's about the bloody time they get it over with.. and I can tell hangging is quite painful if they drop him low enough and he dies on chocking and not on cracking of the spine.

Lamby

November 6th, 2006, 04:32 AM

yeah I've heard hanging can be pretty painful. I'd hate to be hung.

I know Saddam has done some really really bad (or should I say evil?) things but I personally dont agree with capital punishment, however that is mainly because there are tonnes of people who are wrongly convicted and if capital punishment is used then an innocent person can be killed etc and we all know that Saddam Hussein IS guilty of awful crimes so maybe he should be the exception?

But still I dont believe that two wrongs make a right and personally killing him the way he killed all those other people would make you just as bad as him. If he was to be killed I'd rather it still be done in a relatively humane way making it as painless as possible.

But still he is obviously a dangerous man and I do not believe that he should be set free at all, but maybe if he was kept alive but in prison for the rest of his life? but if that was the case Iraq may find it harder to move on or get past all this? maybe killing him signifys the end of his reign and would help them get back on their feet?

I also feel for those who where personally affected by what he did and I would probably feel differently if I was one of them. I dont know,
but I just personally hate the thought of someone being sentenced to death no matter who they are.

Stormfury

November 6th, 2006, 06:02 AM

I would tend to agree that his death sentence should be commuted to life imprisonment.

Xinithian

November 6th, 2006, 06:23 AM

Hanging shouldn't be done anywhere, anymore. It seems like an awful way to die. Either you suffocate to death while your eyes are bulging out due to the blood pressure, awaiting a horrible SNAP when your neck breaks, or your neck breaks immediately. If they don't want to give him a humane death, they should just kill him with a firing squad (although that's bad too, 'cause they can miss your heart with that method).

Shadow

November 6th, 2006, 01:07 PM

he was dead the moment they got him...and god am so glad no freaking conspiresy didnt get him out...in one pic will say..

Darkslash

November 6th, 2006, 01:19 PM

I support whatever the Iraqis want to do with him. They say hang, I say hang. They have sent a strong message that tyrants will die awful deaths.

Only-now

November 6th, 2006, 01:27 PM

I don't have time to reply to this because I have to go to work..but some quick points:

1) Hanging is actually very humane if done CORRECTLY which when done by a court order should be. It is supposed to be an instant death..NOT strangulation. It is STILL a legal way of execution here in the United States by the way.

2) What Ghamu said is BS.

3) The acts of a few soldiers NOT endorsed by our military..nor practiced by very many at all..should be used to put the face on an entire country.

~Kiva

TX-101

November 6th, 2006, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by Xinithian
Hanging shouldn't be done anywhere, anymore. It seems like an awful way to die.

He deserves it. I would put him on 4 parts with hummers or even biger vehicles.

edit: but after I wouzld cut all his skin off and put some salt on him.. He is one of biggest criminals living now. Becouse of him, there was so much pain on the world. He really deserves it.

Ghamu

November 6th, 2006, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Only-now
I don't have time to reply to this because I have to go to work..

Why don't you wait until you've got the time then? Relax, man. We know that saying something negative about the US will attract you just as a fly will go to bad food. And we won't forget about the thread if your reply has to wait a few hours.

Shadow

November 6th, 2006, 08:37 PM

if you ask me...i hope he gets hanged "in-corecktly" and gets strangeld.....

XxBlackXxParadeXx

November 6th, 2006, 09:06 PM

I dont belive in Death sentances (thank the Green Mile), plus people have been saying that they will avenge his death

Nephilim

November 6th, 2006, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by Only-now
2) What Ghamu said is BS.

I don't see how, seeing as there's more than enough evidence. And the torture thing is definitely true; if I remember correctly, a bill was passed allowing it, only renaming torture "pressure," and all kind of sick, depraved things are allowed to go on now.

Dyani

November 6th, 2006, 11:57 PM

^ I agree with neph on that point.

Ghamu.. you are right :cheese: But also XxBlackXxParadeXx.. yes i totally agree with that.. Green Mile is a horrendously amazing film

Anyone who agrees with the Death Penalty MUST watch this, mainly because it shows what happens when people judge others wrong.

On Saddam.. I personally don't like the idea of him choking to death.. or his spine cracking or anything.. I definatly think the bugger should suffer.. heck suffer A LOT!! But if we make him suffer a lot.. then aren't we just as bad as him.. simply calling it justice? How the f**k does that work?????

Only-now

November 7th, 2006, 12:17 AM

I was merely stating that what I wrote was not my full reply. I have more to state on this issue than what I wrote earlier. It sure will attract me..I love my country. Though..these type of threads attract your type as well..so I hope that wasn't meant as an insult.

1) Abu (however you spell it) does not even come CLOSE to torture whatsover. Also....I would like to state that it was the US military that told the media about what happened at that prison. The media did not find it out themselves..it wasn't a conspiracy etc. Not to mention our military does not endorse that type of action...all those soldiers were punished etc. If you did want to say the military endorses it..then why would they break the news to the media when apparently uninformed people like yourself...would use it against them? Putting bags over someone's head...and making them stand naked is not even CLOSE to torture. Not even CLOSE to what Saddam did. Throwing live babies against walls...raping women in front of their husbands...and supporters of him cutting off innocent's heads? You want to compare that and what happened by a few over-zealous soldiers?

2) "Concentration Camp"?! *laughs*. It is a prison man! The whole world knows about it! They get three meals a day, prayers and signs telling guards not to disturb them etc etc. In fact..some prisoners have even said that they live better there than they did in Afganistan or Iraq! You want to call it a concentration camp?

3) Of course we would have secret prisons. What is wrong with that? They are in warring nations...filled with insurgents. Why would we want the location of those places known to the public? So they can be attacked and suspected terrorists can escape and cause more trouble?

4) Neph...that law does not allow torture. I get tired of those statements. It defines what IS an isn't allowed so that our interrogators won't get in trouble by going too far. Not to mention, most of the tactics we use aren't even close to torture. Some of them include water boarding (which even a news reporter volunteered to undergo and a high up terrorist only survived two minutes of it before giving up valuable info that saved American lives), loud rock music, cold rooms. None of that is torture..and frankly I wouldn't mind more extreme methods if it saves innocent American's or American soldier's lives. Apparently you guys are saying that you would prefer to be kind and considerate to a criminal who wants to kill you and your family and that that type of man is worth losing brave soldiers and innocent people's lives for? That philosophy doesn't seem to fit to me. I don't endorse torture..but I fully believe that we don't do anything that cruel and what we do do has shown results.

I've watched the Green Mile and I still agree with the death penalty. Hanging is not cruel or painful if done right (for the second time). So..if you are a bleeding heart and think this man deserves a quick death then he IS getting one if it makes you feel any better. He does deserve death...and in my opinion a much worse one.

This thread wasn't about the U.S's policies or anything. The Iraqi people convicted him..and sentenced him. We could have just shot him when we found him and it would have been really easy...but we didn't. So...Idk how we got the idea that this was a US trial or something. If you don't like the sentence yell at the Iraqi people.

~Kiva

Darkslash

November 7th, 2006, 02:56 AM

But if we make him suffer a lot.. then aren't we just as bad as him.. simply calling it justice? How the f**k does that work?????
It works because we aren't taking it out on him... Iraqis are, in their own courts, with their own mix of Islamic and Western traditions. It's a completely fair verdict. For any nation, including the US, to intervene and say, "No, you can't hang him, but you have to put him in jail or send him to international court," (Milosevic anyone?) would be incredibly rude to the Iraqis who actually have suffered under his rule, and indescribably disrespectful to those hundreds of thousands who died at his hands.

Only-now, you're right about Abu-Ghraib. Worse is done as fraternity hazing at US colleges. Saddam forcing men to watch their pregnant wives forced through a meat grinder does not compare, not in the US, not in the UK, not in Iraq... it's shameful to even mention the two as remotely similar.

Guantanamo Bay... lol, more like Club Guantanamo: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008952

There is no solitary confinement at Guantanamo; even at maximum-security Camp 5, the cells have outside light and openings in the doors through which detainees can communicate with one another. They have ample contact with the world beyond the camp, too. "Over 40,000 pieces of mail have come in and out of here," Adm. Harris says. "If you chose to write one of them a letter, all you'd need to do is put their name on it, say 'Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,' put our ZIP code on it, and they will get that letter.

"Most of the detainees have lawyers," the admiral adds. "There are over 900 habeas lawyers representing less than 450 detainees," and the lawyers are free to visit their clients. Representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross "come down for almost a month at a time, four times a year, and then [for shorter periods] at other times, and they have unfettered access to any detainee they want to see, whenever they want to see them."
They deserve much worse.

And secret prisons? Gasp! That makes the US a dictatorship and Bush a dictator! Golly gee, I sure hope the NSA doesn't wiretap me and throw me in one!

And so what if we defined torture for ourselves? The US says that torture will and won't be certain things for prisoners under our control. Who cares what other say? Our democracy, our rules.

And death penalty = teh pwn.

In the name of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove, Amen.

Only-now

November 7th, 2006, 04:13 AM

Good post man *pats you on the back* That was very informed and correct too :)

~Kiva

Dyani

November 7th, 2006, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by Darkslash
It works because we aren't taking it out on him... Iraqis are, in their own courts, with their own mix of Islamic and Western traditions. It's a completely fair verdict.

I meant whoever was taking out punishment out on him.. not the US.. thus that means they are just as bad him!!!!!

I'mnotgonnarantabouttheUScoswiththemoodI'minIcould goonfordays!!!!

Otherwise that was a well thought out reply, I agree :cheese: *Must Resist KILLING* :lol:

Stormfury

November 7th, 2006, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by Darkslash
In the name of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove, Amen.

Amen.

Only-now

November 7th, 2006, 01:25 PM

Oops...I forgot: Amen!

~Kiva

XxBlackXxParadeXx

November 7th, 2006, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by Only-now

I've watched the Green Mile and I still agree with the death penalty. Hanging is not cruel or painful if done right (for the second time). So..if you are a bleeding heart and think this man deserves a quick death then he IS getting one if it makes you feel any better. He does deserve death...and in my opinion a much worse one.

I dont think he deserves a quick death, i dont think he should be killed at all

lion_roog

November 7th, 2006, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by Darkslash

In the name of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove, Amen.

:haha:...What the hell?...:D

Anyways, some people in the military do bad things, because they are human and humans will do bad things. But you have good people in the military, too. Just a few weeks ago this soldier reported how members of his unit raped and killed people in this one village. HE did the right thing...many soldiers risk thier lives and such to do the right thing...just as there are the ones who do the wrong things. It's just too bad that the wrongs things make the news more so than the right. Anyways, this is pertaining to acts such as Abu Grahib(sp*).

I don't agree with the death penalty...all it mainly does is control the population in prisons. Other than that it doesn't really accomplish much and is a poor source of closure.

Shadow

November 7th, 2006, 08:41 PM

hanging is to mild i say stone the basterd..

TX-101

November 7th, 2006, 08:45 PM

They should put him in acid and let the bastard die in it.

Pnt

November 7th, 2006, 09:07 PM

Wouldn't making Saddam be subjected to a hideously cruel death be just as bad as what that man did to other people? I've never been a fan of "An eye for an eye," I always figured it led to blindness.

Darkslash

November 7th, 2006, 09:18 PM

Originally posted by Pnt
Wouldn't making Saddam be subjected to a hideously cruel death be just as bad as what that man did to other people? I've never been a fan of "An eye for an eye," I always figured it led to blindness.
You may be opposed to the death penalty on principle.

But to oppose anything but death, in whatever form, for such a maniacal tyrant, shows that one has already blinded oneself to the evil he has wrought on his country. It would be to send the message that, though hundreds of thousands die at his hand, he wins by remaining alive.

I support whatever the Iraqis want to do to him. They suffered, they choose the punishment. We have no right to condemn their choice. I'd be a bit disappointed if they had chosen life imprisonment, but I would support them, had that near-impossible scenario played out.

lion_roog

November 7th, 2006, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by Pnt
Wouldn't making Saddam be subjected to a hideously cruel death be just as bad as what that man did to other people? I've never been a fan of "An eye for an eye," I always figured it led to blindness.

Agreed...it's like Gandhi said..."An eye for an eye ends up making the whole world blind" He also said this..."I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."

Tiikeri

November 7th, 2006, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by Darkslash
In the name of George W. Bush
WTF? That man couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery, he did nothing to help the war, and with the help of Mr Blair, actually made things worse. Those two are like a pair of chocolate fireguards.

As for Saddam, I don't care how he dies, as long as he does die.

Only-now

November 7th, 2006, 11:26 PM

Everyone has thier opinion. I believe in the death penalty because I do believe that it a punishment that fits certain crimes. If someone takes the life of another person...that person can never come back. Life imprisonment still gets the criminal food, sunlight (if even for an hour), and thoughts. Something the victim can never have again. If there is a hell..and that criminal is going there...then I say we speed up the time he has to wait. Obviously not every crime deserves this..but I do think it is a punishment that is plausible and valuable.

~Kiva

Pnt

November 8th, 2006, 02:15 AM

Originally posted by Darkslash
You may be opposed to the death penalty on principle.

But to oppose anything but death, in whatever form, for such a maniacal tyrant, shows that one has already blinded oneself to the evil he has wrought on his country. It would be to send the message that, though hundreds of thousands die at his hand, he wins by remaining alive.

I support whatever the Iraqis want to do to him. They suffered, they choose the punishment. We have no right to condemn their choice. I'd be a bit disappointed if they had chosen life imprisonment, but I would support them, had that near-impossible scenario played out.

I don't like those sorts of absolute statements, never made much sense to me. "If you don't agree with me wholeheartedly, you're ignorant to the situation" just doesn't fly too well in an intelligent discussion. I have every right to condemn the Iraqi's choice, a decade of horrific treatment does not entitle a people to a silence-those-who-disagree card. Violence is violence, and as Roog was saying, I have yet to see anything good come from it.

My opinions on that aside, that wasn't actually wasn't my original issue. My issue is some people thinking that a man should be dipped in acid or skinned alive. I don't care who the man was, that's horrific and cruel. The whole, "He did it to other people," defense just puts those who'd do this to him at his level. Now, I'm not talking to anyone in particular, I don't see much of a point in calling someone out on an internet forum, but asking for a man to be skinned alive, dipped in acid, or strangled to death is an improper way to deal with strong emotions and, frankly, is just extremely cruel. I don't like people celebrating another man's condemnation either, that's just not something to laugh and cheer about.

As for the death penalty, well, I think it's one of those shades-of-gray issues. Killing the man who killed someone else does fit the original crime. I guess that turns into a question of whether that's good, because from my perspective, you now have at least two dead people, at least two miserable families, and you're not a single bit closer to improving the situation.

Darkslash

November 8th, 2006, 02:18 AM

How do you want that we react, then?

"Dang, Saddam's been sentenced to death. Wish the old chap could've been left to live."

Pnt

November 8th, 2006, 02:24 AM

There's a good distance between cruelty and indifference, I'm sure we can find a place to form an opinion between the two.

Darkslash

November 8th, 2006, 02:27 AM

What type of death, then, do you prefer for Saddam? What's your definition of cruel?

Only-now

November 8th, 2006, 02:47 AM

I think it is perfectly alright to cheer someone's condemnation. Just like people have a right to be very upset when a guilty man goes free...people have the right to be happy when justice is served.

In a death penalty situation...you don't just have two dead people. You have a victim..that died for no justifiable reason (thus against the law) and you have a man who broke societies law (and sometimes a man who is very cruel and evil himself) and died because that is what justice dictates should happen. The death penalty..nor any punishment is meant to make anyone feel better. Those are the punishments for crimes..and that punishment is how justice is served. I think that many victim's family have some closure from knowing that justice was served...but in the end it was not meant to cure their grief. As for the criminal's family...well that is unfortunate they have to suffer..but so does the victim's family and for no reason whatsoever. The criminal made a choice...and he paid the price for it. His family will always know that..and although they are not the ones being punished..that type of thing is something the criminal should consider before going through with his crime.

Cruelty is not a good thing..but it can come from different places. That is obviously a way of expressing anger...only with words instead of actions. Some people would react by actually carrying out those things...but speaking them is different. Until you have gone through the type of treatment that those Iraqi's did...I don't think you can say that you wouldn't be angry enough to express yourself that way (not that anyone here has undergone that treatment). I have no problem with people being angry....and there are plenty of things to hate this man for. There are plenty of things I can think of that would lead me to say I hope someone a painful death. Obviously that is just speech...so it really isn't a big deal. I don't think that it is an improper way to deal with emotion because they are only words. The people making the decision obviously didn't sentence him to any type of torture or a cruel death. Justice is on their side..and he is paying the price for his crimes.

~Kiva

Pnt

November 8th, 2006, 03:17 AM

@Darkslash: It's not my place to play God, I don't think I should be deciding that one's life should be taken in the name of "Justice." However, since I know that he's condemned, hanging or lethal injection would be my choice because both are relatively painless if done correctly.

Originally posted by Only-now
I think it is perfectly alright to cheer someone's condemnation. Just like people have a right to be very upset when a guilty man goes free...people have the right to be happy when justice is served.

In a death penalty situation...you don't just have two dead people. You have a victim..that died for no justifiable reason (thus against the law) and you have a man who broke societies law (and sometimes a man who is very cruel and evil himself) and died because that is what justice dictates should happen. The death penalty..nor any punishment is meant to make anyone feel better. Those are the punishments for crimes..and that punishment is how justice is served. I think that many victim's family have some closure from knowing that justice was served...but in the end it was not meant to cure their grief. As for the criminal's family...well that is unfortunate they have to suffer..but so does the victim's family and for no reason whatsoever. The criminal made a choice...and he paid the price for it. His family will always know that..and although they are not the ones being punished..that type of thing is something the criminal should consider before going through with his crime.

Cruelty is not a good thing..but it can come from different places. That is obviously a way of expressing anger...only with words instead of actions. Some people would react by actually carrying out those things...but speaking them is different. Until you have gone through the type of treatment that those Iraqi's did...I don't think you can say that you wouldn't be angry enough to express yourself that way (not that anyone here has undergone that treatment). I have no problem with people being angry....and there are plenty of things to hate this man for. There are plenty of things I can think of that would lead me to say I hope someone a painful death. Obviously that is just speech...so it really isn't a big deal. I don't think that it is an improper way to deal with emotion because they are only words. The people making the decision obviously didn't sentence him to any type of torture or a cruel death. Justice is on their side..and he is paying the price for his crimes.

~Kiva

If anyone can think of anything more powerful that didn't first result in "Speech" and "Words", I'd love to hear it. What you say is a big deal, or there'd be no reason to protect your right to say it. I hope you keep that in mind.

I guess my opinion on the matter of the death penalty is the same with war and non-defensive violence, I just don't see what is gained.

lion_roog

November 8th, 2006, 03:28 AM

Originally posted by Only-now

Cruelty is not a good thing..but it can come from different places. That is obviously a way of expressing anger...only with words instead of actions. Some people would react by actually carrying out those things...but speaking them is different. Until you have gone through the type of treatment that those Iraqi's did...I don't think you can say that you wouldn't be angry enough to express yourself that way (not that anyone here has undergone that treatment). I have no problem with people being angry....and there are plenty of things to hate this man for. There are plenty of things I can think of that would lead me to say I hope someone a painful death. Obviously that is just speech...so it really isn't a big deal. I don't think that it is an improper way to deal with emotion because they are only words. The people making the decision obviously didn't sentence him to any type of torture or a cruel death. Justice is on their side..and he is paying the price for his crimes.

~Kiva

But what a man thinks is what a man is. And isn't expressing yourself in a particular way a reflection of yourself and your thoughts? I can understand the feelings of anger that people may have towards someone, but it is healthy to learn to forgive and not go overboard in the name of revenge. I think there is a line between justice (ie. the death penalty in this particular case) and revenge (wanting to see him suffer under some unusual and cruel method). I would be lying if I said I never had feelings of wanting someone dead...but I knew at those times I was not in a position to take actions on my conscious thoughts and feelings. Later on I was able to think and feel more clearly and knew that revenge would not solve anything for me. I forgave those people and moved on...hoping the best for them. This case is a different matter, but I hope that people can be strong enough to control their anger and rage.

Only-now

November 8th, 2006, 03:50 AM

There is a difference between justice and revenge. Not to mention, the people who are stating what they feel on this forum have no influence on the case or what happens to Saddam. Words are powerful..and they do need to be protected...but I don't feel that people are doing anything wrong by using those words (most likely exagerrated) to describe how they feel about this man. Not to mention, on the internet it is much harder to express one's feelings. I think those types of statements are just to show what one feels..and I feel they have plenty of reason to overstate as much as they want. I don't think it reflects on them as a person at all....nor do I think they would go through with that if they had the choice. Saddam should not be forgiven for anything he has done. He is getting a fair punishment and a quick death. I believe people here are glad he got what he deserves..but they also want to express that they dislike him to a degree in which they feel more extreme measures of punishment would fit the crime.

~Kiva

Pnt

November 8th, 2006, 04:11 AM

Originally posted by Only-now
There is a difference between justice and revenge. Not to mention, the people who are stating what they feel on this forum have no influence on the case or what happens to Saddam. Words are powerful..and they do need to be protected...but I don't feel that people are doing anything wrong by using those words (most likely exagerrated) to describe how they feel about this man. Not to mention, on the internet it is much harder to express one's feelings. I think those types of statements are just to show what one feels..and I feel they have plenty of reason to overstate as much as they want. I don't think it reflects on them as a person at all....nor do I think they would go through with that if they had the choice. Saddam should not be forgiven for anything he has done. He is getting a fair punishment and a quick death. I believe people here are glad he got what he deserves..but they also want to express that they dislike him to a degree in which they feel more extreme measures of punishment would fit the crime.

~Kiva

Don't get me wrong, I do realize that the people on this forum have the right to say what they're saying, I'm just disagreeing with what they're saying. I do agree with Roog though, what a person says and does reflects what kind of person they are. If I call for a man to be tortured and killed, that speaks of who I am as an individual. If I didn't mean it to some extent, I shouldn't say it. Whether they'd go through with it or not is neither here nor there, as it's one of those "What if" type of situations, though I do realize the vast majority are blowing smoke. Many times I think the line between Justice and Revenge is extremely blurred, and too often I think one is mistaken for the other.

As for forgiveness, if Saddam wholeheartedly asked to be forgiven, I would forgive him. Being Christian, I ask my God to forgive me of my transgressions against Him and recieve forgiveness; I believe I am to do the same if someone asks forgiveness of me. No, I wasn't directly affected by his cruelty, though I have lost friends and family in the war against his regime, but that doesn't mean I'm not entitled to an opinion on the subject. That's my opinion from my beliefs and life experience, others are welcome to think otherwise based on their own beliefs and life experiences.

lion_roog

November 8th, 2006, 04:14 AM

Originally posted by Only-now
nor do I think they would go through with that if they had the choice.

Then why state it in the first place to begin with? I understand what you're saying and all, but I think I'm just coming from a different perspective in respects to our different experiences in life. Maybe the internet is a good place to release anger, considering its influences on your real life are usually minimal in general cases. I still feel that what a person says says a lot about that person. It's like what Jesus said when he explained that what goes into a man's mouth doesn't make him unclean (speaking in regards to beliefs that certain foods would make you unclean) but rather what comes out of it...

Sadiki

November 8th, 2006, 10:07 AM

I would say putting him in death cell and keeping there till the end of his life would be way worse punishment than death.

death is just an easy way out. no matter how they do it, it wont be bringing justice.

and no I don't really belieave in death penalty, in my opinion it belongs in middle age and before even I know it have been used for the longest time. But I do have to agree that it's none of our business to deside what happens to him, Europe or United states shouldn't pick sides on whats going to happen. it's good to have an opinion but killing should be never be option.

I also can't understand how so religious USA can accept death sentence on their own land sinse even the fourth of the commitments is " don't kill ". I really have to say I find it extreamly strange how that works. also that same book says that you should be doing the same others as you wish to be treathed yourself. that have been something I have wonder for the longest time. ( and no, I'm not religious person, I don't even believe in anything, but sinse everyone has right to believe in whatever they want and claim that they do something for religion, shouldn't they live by the book then? )

XxBlackXxParadeXx

November 8th, 2006, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Darkslash
How do you want that we react, then?

"Dang, Saddam's been sentenced to death. Wish the old chap could've been left to live."
Actually yes, allready there has been too many deaths i dont see why we should now kill a man when he could be kept imprisoned, killing him wont solve anything, it will just make people angry I.e his suppporters, then causing more deaths

I also can't understand how so religious USA can accept death sentence on their own land sinse even the fourth of the commitments is " don't kill ". I really have to say I find it extreamly strange how that works.
Same here its allways seemed a bit Hyprocritical to me

nathalie

November 8th, 2006, 10:53 AM

I don't know ...

A part of me thinks: let him have the same thing, what he did with those people.

Another part things: let him suffer big for the rest of live.

Dyani

November 8th, 2006, 11:31 AM

@ Nath - Just about sums what a lot of people think..

Perhaps whoever-is-condemning-Saddam is, by condemning him, just as bad as Saddam. Death is horrible full stop.

Forgiveness wouldn't solve the problem. I wholeheartedly agree with Pnt as forgiveness would make us better people. Wanting this man to die horribly just makes us sound as bad as him. Ever read the end of Orwell's *Animal Farm*? During a poker match, an argument breaks out between Napoleon (the revolutionary leader, a pig) and Mr. Pilkington when they both play an Ace of Spades, and the animals realize that theycannot tell the difference between the pigs and the humans.

Again on the Death penalty.. who has read *Dead Man Walking*? Gives an idea from the councellors point of view of the prisoner and prison life. Waiting for Death.

Only-now

November 8th, 2006, 11:24 PM

It is a bad punishment to live in a cell until you die..but as I stated earlier...you are still alive...you still eat, and think. All of those are something his INNOCENT victims will never get to do again. THAT is why I feel the death penalty is another choice.

God says that we shall not kill, but he also endorses wars. There are exceptions to the rule. We will never no what a God may be thinking. Even when we supposedly have his words (the Bible) people interpret it different ways. You know what is funny about your statement though..(not that you meant it like this), but you said that the "Religious USA" can kill when the religion says not to. So..now you have to be religious for killing to be wrong? It is justified in the rest of the world? There has to be some reason why you think it is wrong in general...and that would be moral beliefs...and that all comes from religion etc. Im going to confuse myself if I keep going though.

I understand everyone's concerns with the death penalty..and I have given it thought as well. At the moment I find that it is a good punishment with some good results (in certain circumstances). I feel that a man like Saddam deserves no less than death...and justice has been served.

~Kiva

Dyani

November 9th, 2006, 01:51 AM

Originally posted by Only-now
It is a bad punishment to live in a cell until you die..but as I stated earlier...you are still alive...you still eat, and think. All of those are something his INNOCENT victims will never get to do again. THAT is why I feel the death penalty is another choice.

God says that we shall not kill, but he also endorses wars. There are exceptions to the rule. We will never no what a God may be thinking. Even when we supposedly have his words (the Bible) people interpret it different ways. You know what is funny about your statement though..(not that you meant it like this), but you said that the "Religious USA" can kill when the religion says not to. So..now you have to be religious for killing to be wrong? It is justified in the rest of the world? There has to be some reason why you think it is wrong in general...and that would be moral beliefs...and that all comes from religion etc. Im going to confuse myself if I keep going though.

I understand everyone's concerns with the death penalty..and I have given it thought as well. At the moment I find that it is a good punishment with some good results (in certain circumstances). I feel that a man like Saddam deserves no less than death...and justice has been served.

~Kiva

OK, I agree on the point that (at least in this case) the death penalty is in fact a viable punishment, particularly for the crimes he committed but that is not the point I am looking at in this post.

What wars have God or Jesus endorsed? Can you give an example? That being said the bible is considered the "word of God" and was recorded by man, and as a result it is in itself, an interpretation of what was done and said at the time. Therefore by reinterpreting the bible again it is bound to be warped out of all proportion by some.

I mean I know of wars that have been in the past deemed as "holy wars" but that?s not by any means a show of God endorsing that kind of behaviour, just as you yourself say an interpretation of what is written.

On top of that all religions have some fundamental basis on morality, not the other way round, this may just be a confusion of words but all religious texts are based on what the individual or individuals that wrote it believed to be right. Many think, myself included that much of these ancient texts could use a rewrite to be seen as relevant and applicable in an ever-progressing world.

Just so you know, this is in fact Dyani's boyfriend, may make an account of my own to respond on these threads and avoid confusion.

Darkslash

November 9th, 2006, 02:17 AM

What wars have God or Jesus endorsed? Can you give an example?
Even though not a particularly religious person, I can tell you that when God told Joshua to take back Israel, he pretty much said to kill anyone in their path, as I understood it.

lion_roog

November 9th, 2006, 04:09 AM

Originally posted by Darkslash
Even though not a particularly religious person, I can tell you that when God told Joshua to take back Israel, he pretty much said to kill anyone in their path, as I understood it.

I believe that's in the Old testament...From my understanding of reading the Bible, most of the violence is contained in the Old Testament.

I find the words of Jesus to be the most valuable part of the Bible. If anyone wants to read and get something from the Bible, the books of Matthew, John, Luke, and Mark are a good place to start.

Only-now

November 9th, 2006, 04:10 AM

I wasn't talking about wars that you or I can rememeber. I was talking about actual battles and wars/death in the Bible that God deemed as alright.

Actually...the Bible is not thought to be an interpretation. Although it was written by men it is thought to be the "WORD" or God..as in...exactly what he said. Now...those who believe (because religious beliefs are a personal thing) can interpret it however they want..and people can follow or deny those ideas.

I don't believe religions are based on morality. If you simply look at us as animals (which many who don't believe in a creator do) then you have to recognize that nature would not have naturally bestowed morals upon us such as "killing is wrong" or "stealing is wrong". Those things do not benefit our survival..nor are they practiced by wild animals. So...where did those morals come from? randomly appear? One could say that religion had an effect because a God designed us with one...but going for the lesser of the two..I can say that I believe that over time religious beliefs established certain moral standards within human society...and we live by those today (regardless of whether you are religious or not).

~Kiva

Sadiki

November 9th, 2006, 05:21 AM

I still don't see what good does killing someone do? It does make the one who choose to put that punishment upon that person just as bad. Neither it does bring those people back who have already died because of Saddam. (or anyone else who have sentenced to death penalty)

Also as said before, Killing Saddam will just increase amount of deaths in Iraq. And Saddam is bearly gonna suffer at all from hanging if you thinking of it as a fair penalty from all he have done. Waiting a death sentence might be painful and terrible, but it still is justice. It's more like a revenge from what he have done to world.

what comes to The Bible and stuff. I just brought it up sinse in every speech United President ever has he says something about God. I just find it extreamly wierd they putting it on every single speech yet they only take good sides from it. And yes it's true that The Bible talks about axcepting killing in war or at least it kind of says that. but it has nothing to do with death sentence. In that case you kill someone who is unarmed, made harmless under tight secure, locked up and so on. it has nothing to do with what The Bible says about accepting killing on war.

Xinithian

November 9th, 2006, 06:49 AM

Originally posted by TX-101
He deserves it. I would put him on 4 parts with hummers or even biger vehicles.

edit: but after I wouzld cut all his skin off and put some salt on him.. He is one of biggest criminals living now. Becouse of him, there was so much pain on the world. He really deserves it. Shouldn't our policies remain unchanged? I guess it's up to the Iraqi's, but if it was up to US policy, we enforce humane penalties and oppose torture. I'm also sick of everybody saying we should torture Iraqi insurgents since they torture our soldiers. We're supposed to keep to our word of humane treatment, and set the good example.

Dyani

November 9th, 2006, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by Only-now
I was talking about actual battles and wars/death in the Bible that God deemed as alright.

First of all, isn't it *actual*? The battles that are written about in the Bible, are they all historically proven? Otherwise they are only actual if you believe the Bible surely?

Originally posted by Only-now
Actually...the Bible is not thought to be an interpretation. Although it was written by men it is thought to be the "WORD" or God..as in...exactly what he said. Now...those who believe (because religious beliefs are a personal thing) can interpret it however they want..and people can follow or deny those ideas.

Haven't you just proven yourself that the Bible is an interpretation by saying *can interpretate it how they want*? Technically, theres three levels of interpretation.
1 - writen in hebrew origionally, interpretating what has been seen / done etc
2 - translated into different languages (the translators themselves admitted this was a bit dodgey, couldn't translate parts acuratly)
3 - however the person / organisations interpretate the text

Originally posted by Xinithian
I'm also sick of everybody saying we should torture Iraqi insurgents since they torture our soldiers. We're supposed to keep to our word of humane treatment, and set the good example.

Good example? Hangon.. who declared war on Saddam because he had *nuclear weapons of mass destruction* and once they get there, Iraq has like one nuke or sommate? You can't declare war on a country based on false evidence or vague evidence and not actually finding the stuff you declared war for in thje first place?!?! It doesn't make sense.

Ok, maybe the true aim of declaring war on Iraq was sommate else.. maybe just to stop the tyrant, maybe to take control of the vast amount of oil there, we don't know, we can just speculate.. but every single person involved with the war deserved the truth.. not an elaborate falsehood. I don't think Bush or Blair have much mentioned WoMD sinse Saddam's fall have they?

BTW Blair doesn't want Saddam to die. :lol: Is that because he fears we want that done to him or sommate?? The *real* reason is sommate like he deserves forgiveness or some other crap. The guys a douche bag anyway, wtf why was he re-elected?? Damn voting system.

(Tis Amy not her boyfriend btw, sorry if his post offended any of you guys.. although he put very very accurate stoof on and basically said a lot of what I was trying to say.. just a lot better than me) :p

Nephilim

November 9th, 2006, 05:28 PM

The Bible is not a particularly good thing to use to back up a statement as a) it's not fact, b) not everyone believes in it, and most of all c) you can use it to back up absolutely anything you want.

(Also, the Bible isn't considered to be the word of God, seeing as a good deal of it was written up to hundreds of years after Jesus lived, so word of mouth corrupted events, and most speech was forgotten. For example, the sermon on the mount is written as an event that took one day, while judging from the amount of things that were discussed this is seemingly impossible. Also, it's not believed that there actually couldn't have been 5000 at this event either.)

Only-now

November 10th, 2006, 04:27 AM

*sighs* Alright...as I remember I wasn't trying to prove anything with the Bible. I wasn't using it as justification. If I remember correctly..someone said that they can't see how we can endorse the death penalty when we are so religious...mentioining the death in the Bible is to show that all killing/death is not going against what the Bible teaches. The fact that the what the Bible states might not have happened is irrelevant since it is a given that if you believe in that religion you have faith it happened.

I'm not going to go into the whole thing about why we went to Iraq etc etc because 1) This isn't the topic of this thread (and neither is the US policy on anything discussed here) 2) If I did discuss it, it would lead to more off-topic-ness and we would end up going in circles.

Of course it was written after his life, but certain key parts to it are thought to be completely accurate. This is not based on historical events..it is based on faith...which is key in believing in the religion in the first place. I would say that the Ten Commandments, Creation, etc etc are thought to be what happened. Not to mention, faith is what believers hold on to...so they believe the text and what it teaches. Not to mention, in Revelation you have the end of the world happening WITH "war" etc.

~Kiva

Pnt

December 30th, 2006, 03:42 AM

To my knowledge, Hussein was hanged about an hour or two ago.

HasiraKali

December 30th, 2006, 03:54 AM

He was hanged at 9pm central. The news didn't break here until about 20 minutes later. Here's CNN's article.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/29/hussein/index.html

DarkElf

December 30th, 2006, 04:36 AM

Won't be long now before they have a video on You Tube.

"And another one gone and another one gone."

Stormfury

December 30th, 2006, 12:21 PM

Enjoy Satan, Saddam (tee-hee).

R.I.P. :hugs:

Cova_Lioness

December 30th, 2006, 01:57 PM

gota see the irony in killing a man because he killed people...

obviously thats a broad representation of what he actually did..

Personally i think, when his time came naturally, hed face upto what he'd done..

Id rather have seen him rot in jail

i appologize if my views are to much for some..

Guntur

December 30th, 2006, 03:13 PM

Nice Sonique ;) Can I argue with you with that statement??...???... nah I just joking :hugs: you're all good. we cool Sonique ;).
Well I think the execution isn't the best way to end violence, since he's gone exile ths situation remain at war. Saddam's follower will revolt and more blood will spill in Iraq. But for me he done much to this world and he shall face what he have done. But I'm afraid his death will be an endless violence between Saddam's follower and the Shitte community.There's also a major turbulance in the muslim world about Shitte and Sunni, but it's a complicated matter people don't want to know. I know that satan deserve to die but the Iraqis is shattered by war and all it's left is vengence and revenge for them.

That's all my speech for today. We shall pray for the better days for the people in the Middle East.

lion_roog

December 30th, 2006, 03:20 PM

I find it funny that we,as a society, kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong...

nathalie

December 30th, 2006, 03:22 PM

Good point Roog ...

Cova_Lioness

December 30th, 2006, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Cova_Lioness
gota see the irony in killing a man because he killed people...

Just to re-do my point..i agree roog

Darkslash

December 30th, 2006, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by lion_roog
I find it funny that we,as a society, kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong...
Not our society, Iraq's. They tried him, they chose the punishment. I, for one, rejoice.

lion_roog

December 30th, 2006, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by Darkslash
Not our society, Iraq's. They tried him, they chose the punishment. I, for one, rejoice.

I know. My statement was a general statement which can be applied to many societies around the world...including ours. But I can see how I mislead in that respects by saying "we, as a society"...Bah, I'm tired...:zzz:

Nephilim

December 30th, 2006, 06:31 PM

Good night, sweet prince.

LunarCat

December 30th, 2006, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by Nephilim
Good night, sweet prince.

what is that from? x)

I guess I agree, but i'm not sure, i do not know enough on the matter only the way the news spins it.

Nephilim

December 30th, 2006, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by Lunarcat
what is that from? x)

The end of Hamlet. :ayecapn: Now cracks a noble heart. Goodnight, sweet prince, and flights of angels sing thee to thy rest

TX-101

December 30th, 2006, 09:38 PM

I'm gald that that idiot died. Ha, and when he was hanged, I was having a good time with friends! HAHA that feels nice.. he deserved it, bastard.

Ravincal

December 31st, 2006, 02:06 AM

Well, it was apparently a good thing that he died, but personally I'm not into death punishments.

Xinithian

December 31st, 2006, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by TX-101
I'm gald that that idiot died. Ha, and when he was hanged, I was having a good time with friends! HAHA that feels nice.. he deserved it, bastard. Although I believe capital punishment, as well as lethal decisions, are necessary, rejoicing in the death of others is never a good thing. Yes, it may be appropriate to feel relieved from his death (because nobody will have to deal with him again), but one shouldn't take it so far as to take pleasure in it. If you take pleasure, you must really hate that person, and hatred blinds. Terrorists are fueled by hatred. Do we really want to be fueled by the same motive that fuels terrorists?