Saddam Hussein sentenced to death by hanging


BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The Iraqi High Tribunal in Baghdad on Sunday sentenced a combative Saddam Hussein and two other defendants to death by hanging for a brutal crackdown in 1982 in the Shiite town of Dujail.

Despite a curfew, Iraqis in Baghdad spilled out into the streets to celebrate the verdict. But protests were held in Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit.

"The Saddam Hussein era is in the past now, as was the era of Hitler and Mussolini," said Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, calling Hussein the worst ruler ever in Iraq.(Watch al-Maliki call Hussein 'worst ruler' in Iraq's history -- 3:06)

"We want an Iraq where all Iraqis are equal before the law," he said. "The policy of discrimination and persecution is over."

The case will be automatically appealed to the Appellate Chamber of the Iraqi High Tribunal. The defense has 30 days to file any motions.

The appeals process was likely to take three to four weeks once the formal paperwork was submitted, a court official told The Associated Press.

However, there is no limit to how long the appeals process can take.

If the Appellate Chamber upholds the conviction and sentence, Hussein must be executed within 30 days. (Watch what's next for Hussein -- 3:13)

White House spokesman Tony Snow praised the Dujail trial verdict, including Hussein's sentence of death by hanging for crimes against humanity.

"It demonstrates that you've got an independent Iraqi judiciary and that they were applying their own laws," Snow said.

World reaction to the verdict was mixed.(Full story)

Along with Hussein, his half brother and former intelligence chief Barzan Hassan, and former chief judge of the Revolutionary Court Awad Bandar also were sentenced to death.

Taha Yassin Ramadan, a former vice president of Iraq, was sentenced to life in prison.

"The verdict was predetermined and has nothing to do with court proceedings," Ramadan said.

Mohammed Azzawi Ali, a former Dujail Baath Party official, was acquitted because of insufficient evidence against him, the court said.

The three others -- Abdullah Kadhem Ruwaid, Ali Dayem Ali, and Misher Abdullah Ruwaid -- were sentenced to 15 years each.

The Dujail case stemmed from a crackdown against townspeople after a 1982 assassination attempt against Hussein in the town. The crackdown involved the ordered executions of 148 males.

'Damn you and your court'
The 50-minute session was dramatic. Hussein entered with a Quran in hand, as he had in the past. He began shouting "Allahu Akhbar" -- God is great -- as the verdict and sentencing was read. (Watch Hussein shout protests during sentencing -- 4:05)

He also argued with the chief judge and shouted, "Damn you and your court."

As the judge ordered him taken away, Hussein said, "Don't push me, boy."

Bandar also shouted "Allahu Akhbar" as he was taken out of court.

Defense attorney Ramsey Clark was also in court, but he was soon ousted by judges for contempt of court. The court accused Clark, a former U.S. attorney general, of insulting the court and the Iraqi people.

Another defense attorney, Ziad al-Najdawi, angrily told reporters as he left the courtroom, "That's the American justice."

During the trial proceedings a few months ago, Hussein said that if he received a death sentence, he would prefer to be executed by a firing squad.

However, at a press conference later, chief prosecutor Jaafar Moussaoui said the law stipulates that a firing squad is normally the sentence issued by military courts. This court deals with crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes, and calls for death by hanging, he said.

Curfew in Sunni areas
Before Sunday's verdicts were announced, a curfew was imposed in Baghdad and two provinces -- Diyala and Salaheddin -- with large Sunni populations. Predominantly Shiite and Kurdish provinces were not under curfew.

About 2,000 protesters in Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit on Sunday defied the curfew and demonstrated in support of the former leader.

The numbers of demonstrators grew after the sentence was announced. A complete movement ban -- both people and vehicles -- was imposed on Sunday in the provinces of Baghdad, Diyala and Salaheddin, where Tikrit is located.

The Baghdad International Airport also shut down until further notice.

This verdicts come nearly three years after U.S.-led forces plucked Hussein out of hiding and just a few days before U.S. midterm elections, with the Iraqi war at center stage.

The U.S. ambassador in Iraq praised the verdicts and sentencing as "an important milestone for Iraq."

"Although the Iraqis may face difficult days in the coming weeks, closing the book on Saddam and his regime is an opportunity to unite and build a better future," Zalmay Khalilzad said in a statement issued shortly after the verdicts were rendered.

Outbursts and walkouts
The Dujail trial, the first in a series of proceedings against former regime officials, began October 19, 2005, and ended July 27. It was a turbulent courtroom battle witnessed on TV across the globe.

It was marked by outbursts and harangues from Hussein and his co-defendants, lawyer walkouts, much-criticized court actions, and complaints from lawyers about poor security. There were grave concerns about security for legal teams and their families; three defense lawyers were killed. (Full story)

Witness testimony and prosecutors got their case across, however. According to court documents, the military, political and security apparatus in Iraq and Dujail killed, arrested, detained and tortured men, women and children in the town. Homes were demolished and orchards were razed.

Hussein is also in the middle of another trial involving the 1988 Anfal campaign, the government offensive in the country's Kurdish region. Hussein is charged in that case with genocide.

CNN's Jomana Karadsheh and Aneesh Raman contributed to this report.

I can't say that hanging him will make me feed good, but it must be done.

It's still a sad day. He deserves it.

Uncle Saddam?

I believe that a man that had the power and freedom of Saddam would suffer more if locked away for life, rather than hanged.

Although his confinement would probably be a security nightmare.

In the immortal words of my old friend Declan McMannus,
"Let him dangle."

I heard this was the first time the leader of a country was sentenced to death by his own country. This is quite an important legal precedent if that's the case.

Where are guerilla and FT to declare this to be an election year shenanigan concocted by Republicans?

I think Nicolae Ceausescu got a xmass like no other in 89.

Hanging's to good for him. Throw him in a gator pit.

now now, theyd have to bring him to Gitmo to do that.
Keep an eye on the death count in Iraq over the next few days,
betwen this and the mid terms,it could get very messy.

now when does america get to put bush and 99% of congress on trial for treason and usurping the u.s. constitution?

Lets see Saddam sentenced to death for killing 148 Shi'ite villagers.

So how many people in Bush Co. are going to be executed for killing 300,000+ Iraqis?

"The big thieves hang the little ones."
- Czech Proverb

Uncle Saddam?

Sisko has quite an extended family.

So how many people in Bush Co. are going to be executed for killing 300,000+ Iraqis?
When you can come up with 100% undeniable and conclusive evidence that "BushCo" deliberately and systematically committed genocide of the Iraqi people (300,000 of them, no less), we'll talk.

Sisko has quite an extended family.

LOL.

He deserves it but I still believe Iraq was better off under his ruling than it is now.

When you can come up with 100% undeniable and conclusive evidence that "BushCo" deliberately and systematically committed genocide of the Iraqi people (300,000 of them, no less), we'll talk. Why the harsher burden for convicting Bush Co. than Saddam?

They deliberately and systematically killed the people of Iraq. Far more then Saddam ever did. Saddams getting punishment, why not Bush? Saddam claims they tried to kill him, Bush sayd they 'try'd to kill my daddy'...The paralells are striking only in that their outcomes are so radically different (at this point).

+++++++++++

Saddam verdict date 'rigged' for Bush
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10409222

Numerous judges have resigned due to "government meddling"...

Why the harsher burden for convicting Bush Co. than Saddam?
Saddam has committed atrocities and they were addressed in a court of law. Bush's crimes have not had a formal assessment like that.
They deliberately and systematically killed the people of Iraq.
They deliberately and systematically killed the people of Iraq (over 300,000 of them)? How? Death camps (that went unreported in the news)? Repeated use of WMDs (that went unreported in the news)? Infantry purposeful and ordered slaughter of civilians (that went unreported in the news)?

Again, prove your nonsensical claim. Wait, you can't...whoops.

Far more then Saddam ever did. Saddams getting punishment, why not Bush?
To the victors go the spoils.

Saddam has committed atrocities and they were addressed in a court of law. Bush's crimes have not had a formal assessment like that. They should.

They deliberately and systematically killed the people of Iraq (over 300,000 of them)? How? Death camps (that went unreported in the news)? Repeated use of WMDs (that went unreported in the news)? Infantry purposeful and ordered slaughter of civilians (that went unreported in the news)? Massive aerial bombardment run non-stop on the news for days at the beginning of the invasion. The first strike alone should be enough. They shot a missle at a restraunt to suppossedly kill saddam. Now assassination is illegal for one (although I think it should be legal because it punishes those responsible rather then the innocent people living in the country, but the 'international laws' are written by 'leaders' so what do you expect) 2ndly it was a restraunt. All the people working there were completely innocent and written a death sentence by Bush and Rummy. The bombing then continued. "Shock and Awe" IS TERRORISM. It is the very definition of terrorism. Bombing is 100% gaurenteed to kill innocent civilians.

If I went and rigged a whole building to explode to kill one guy who I knew was a mass murderer what would I be charged with? I would certainly be charged with the deaths of the hundreds of people who also died, and rightly so. Even if I had proof the guy I got had murdered over 1000 people, I would still be charged, and rightly so.

To the victors go the spoils. There you go. At least now you are being truthful.

Those who have the big guns get to write the rules. This has nothing to do with morality or whats right or liberating the Iraqi people. This has to do with assholes who have the firepower to do whatever the hell they want. Don't try to pretend its anything but that.

They should.
Why bother? He's an American president.

Massive aerial bombardment run non-stop on the news for days at the beginning of the invasion. The first strike alone should be enough.
I want 100% conclusive evidence that there was a deliberate and systematic extermination of the Iraqi people. You aren't providing evidence of that, you're just pointing out less-than-careful means of warfare; I'm not going to be convinced of your assertion if you just point out collateral damage.
The bombing then continued. "Shock and Awe" IS TERRORISM. It is the very definition of terrorism. Bombing is 100% gaurenteed to kill innocent civilians.
Okay, another farcical claim. Show me evidence that bombing is 100% gaurenteed (sic) to kill civilians.

I don't care what is and what isn't terrorism guerilla. It is a broad, overarching label that can be applied to many things. I'm now waiting for you to prove two claims that are a stretch at best.
There you go. At least now you are being truthful.
I have only ever been truthful. In fact, let's make that strike three: provide evidence of myself not being truthful in this thread.
Don't try to pretend its anything but that.
Who said I was? I wasn't.

LOL.

He deserves it but I still believe Iraq was better off under his ruling than it is now.

Oh yea... absolute monarchy directed by fear is totally better than a voted gov't....

:rolleyes:

I heard this was the first time the leader of a country was sentenced to death by his own country. This is quite an important legal precedent if that's the case.

Whoever told you that is full of shit. Both King Louis XVI and his Queen, Marie Antoinette, were famously beheaded at the height of the French Revolution by the republican government. Charles I was the first regent to be tried and executed, by England's budding republic.

Oh yea... absolute monarchy directed by fear is totally better than a voted gov't....

:rolleyes:

The voted government currently in power is also directed by fear. Not an Iraqi politician today is without constant fear for his life. At least Saddam kept order.

Previously Saddam had said that he wished for a military execution by firing squad---that hanging was for common criminals.

If not done correctly he will slowly strangle at the end of his rope for 20 or more minutes.

Whoever told you that is full of shit. Both King Louis XVI and his Queen, Marie Antoinette, were famously beheaded at the height of the French Revolution by the republican government. Charles I was the first regent to be tried and executed, by England's budding republic.

That's correct, but if that was an English "republic" it was very short lived.
Oliver Cromwell later dismissed Parliament and ruled as "Lord Protector"--an absolute monarch and king in all but name.

England's entire history after Charles I could be viewed in terms of the power struggle between Parliament, the monarch, and the Catholic Church. It is probably the most defining feature of English politics. And there's no saying that the current Iraqi government will last longer than ten years.

Once the US pulls the plug on military involvement, the Iraqi Government wont last 10 months, never mind 10 years. Formed by one Imperial Empire, brought down by another.
As for Saddam, Executing him will be a big mistake.

I fear you may be right, Paul. As heinous as he was, he ran that hideous stretch of land and all its wackos better than anyone else could.

As for Saddam, Executing him will be a big mistake.
How so?

Yep, Ive already stated sometime ago that the US was sidetracked into Iraq purely on US Domestic Politics reasons. Just when the US Forces were cornering alQaeda in the Bora Bora Caves they were pulled away on some bullshit op in Iraq.

How so?
Hanging Saddam would have a number of results, make a martyr of him in his home region around Tikrit, also among the ex Administrators who ran Iraq for him, the Ba'th people, who will be needed in the future to run the region, will bring civil war a step closer and show the new Government for what they are, whipping boys for Washington nothing else.
Ive no love for Saddam, in fact I always thought that US patrol who found him in a hole should have plugged him filled the hole in and said nothing, but then again US Domestic Politics came into play, were was it that President Bush said ''We got him'', some Aircraft Carrier.

I don't know. You've got to question the timing of this verdict. :hahanot:

Thats the United States Republican Party Baghdad Branch for you, once again US Domestic Politics take precedent over Iraqi issues.

Lets see Saddam sentenced to death for killing 148 Shi'ite villagers.

So how many people in Bush Co. are going to be executed for killing 300,000+ Iraqis?

Excellent question.

Well.....except that the number is closer to 600,000.

Excellent question.

Well.....except that the number is closer to 600,000.
It's hard to describe how much I want to laugh and cry at your (as well as Guerilla's) views on this matter.

It's hard to describe how much I want to laugh and cry at your (as well as Guerilla's) views on this matter.
Whys that Evak, unless ofcoyrse all these people just disappeared.

Why is that Paul? Because someone who would say something, or agree to something like this:
They deliberately and systematically killed the people of Iraq. Far more then Saddam ever did.
...is drinking too much of grandma's cough syrup.

Evak, just watch the news, theres never a day goes by when upwards of 100 Iraqi die violent deaths, that toll keeps adding up.

Evak, just watch the news, theres never a day goes by when upwards of 100 Iraqi die violent deaths, that toll keeps adding up.
Is Pres. Bush's administration and policies responsible for the up-surge in violence that has resulted in so much death? Yes, very much so.

Do those same policies constitute 'the deliberate and systematic extermination of the Iraqi people'? No. Collateral damage or careless warfare do not genocide make.

That may well be, but all your doing is shifting the name of why these people die, at the end of the day their still dead, and the responsability lies at the White House.

Intent, means, and ends are three very different objects in the game of ethics.

Here is a wikipedia article that details the study that Freethinker gets his 600,000 number from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2 003_invasion_of_Iraq

Intent, means, and ends are three very different objects in the game of ethics

Hundreds of thousands of people die, and we want to quibble over whether BushCo intended to kill them. Who intends to kill anybody? Any two bit murderer will tell you he didn't mean to do it, when he can't get away with saying he didn't do it.

The public needs to put these deaths at someones feet. The only ones responsible, is the Bush Administration. Whether or not they themselves manned the machine guns, it's their responsibility. And ours too for agreeing to go along with it, and the rest of the world for not stopping us.

Hundreds of thousands of people die, and we want to quibble over whether BushCo intended to kill them.

Well, actually.....only the apologists for the despicable rightwing cabal that brought about the circumstance that lead to their deaths wants to *quibble* over it.

600,000 people killed so that fatcats can reap billions in profits.....and these lowlife's excuse for those deaths is basically --"Oh well, shit happens. Gawd Bless Amuuurica!!".

Makes the gorge rise in one's throat.

Hundreds of thousands of people die, and we want to quibble over whether BushCo intended to kill them.
Yes, I want to. And I will continue to do so. 600,000 dead? Big deal. Kill another 600,000. It it means profits for us and death for Iraq, keep at it. As long as I can piss off FT, I will praise Bush's efforts to drink the blood of Iraqi children and be a war profiteer.

Kill 'em all.

*shakes fist triumphantly*

600,000 people killed so that fatcats can reap billions in profits.....and these lowlife's excuse for those deaths is basically --"Oh well, shit happens. Gawd Bless Amuuurica!!".

Indeed, but America just doesn't seem to have the capacity to accept that on an intellectual level. We seem to think that just because we elected these people that they have to be somehow better than tyrants. People are all too willing to take at face value rationalizations given by our authority figures in order to absolve their own responsibilities over having elected these people.

Bush and company seem to have perfected the art of taking advantage of this psychological aspect of humanity to great effect.

As long as I can piss off FT,

An admirable goal. Carry on.

It's hard to describe how much I want to laugh and cry .......

Much the same way I feel upon observing a mewling little cheerleader and apologist for all things Righwing --for whom independent thought is anathema-- choosing a pic of the great independant thinker Bertrand Russell for his avatar.

600,000 dead? Big deal. Kill another 600,000. It it means profits for us and death for Iraq, keep at it.

Bravo. Spoken like a true Rightwing supporter.

I appreciate your candor.

Much the same way I feel upon observing a mewling little cheerleader and apologist for all things Righwing
That's certainly not the case, as I'm not conservative.
--for whom independent thought is anathema-- choosing a pic of the great independant thinker Bertrand Russell for his avatar.
I am the most radical member of these boards by far, so you can eat your own excrement. I will continue to use the avatar of Bertrand Russell, enjoy.

I am the most radical member of these boards by far, ......

ROTFL........perhaps in the way that Archie Bunker was "radical".....

ROTFL........perhaps in the way that Archie Bunker was "radical".....
I'm a devout nihilist; I can never lose a debate, and have the most outlandish views here. So laugh if you must, but know that you will never defeat me.

Oh, and fuck you. :)

600,000 dead? Big deal. Kill another 600,000. It it means profits for us and death for Iraq, keep at it.

Big Deal? 600,000 is a large amount of deaths. Its more than half a million people. Since March 19, 200 men, women, and children have been killed. Wow! A clear blatant disregard for human life. As long as their not American, it seems like you don't care about the rest of the World.

America went in to Iraq to take out Saddam because he was thought to have had Weapons of Mass Destruction. We all know what the end result of that was. So what do Americans say after that? "Well, at least we took out a brutal dictator." Yes. Saddam was a brutal dictator. But America has done much worse for Iraq than Saddam has ever done. Iraq was far better off under Saddam than they are under America. Further, you go on to say that the deaths of 600,000 Iraqis means nothing. What a foolish statement.

Just because they're from another part of the World, doesn't make them less human.

Wow! A clear blatant disregard for human life. As long as their not American, it seems like you don't care about the rest of the World.
Incorrect, I don't care about the world in its entirety.

Oh Shit, theres only 6 million of us.

Incorrect, I don't care about the world in its entirety.

I said it seemed. It's nice of you to clear that up though... It's still foolish regardless.

I'm a devout nihilist; I can never lose a debate, and have the most outlandish views here. So laugh if you must, but know that you will never defeat me.

This sounds familiar.

Since March 19, 200 men, women, and children have been killed. Wow! A clear blatant disregard for human life. As long as their not American, it seems like you don't care about the rest of the World.
You know, I have to admit - I didn't realize the Iraqi people cherished "human life" so much. When you put it like that, it really paints a bad picture of the American soldiers fighting in Iraq. For example, like when our boys indiscriminately pull "200 men, women, and children" out of their homes for a nice old-fashioned summary execution, American style. I mean, hey.....that's what we're known for, right??? You know, the thought of a peaceful Iraq (which apparently existed in 2002 prior to young boys being forced to carry around fully automatic weapons to ward off the invading, barbarous hordes of the west) really makes me long for the way things used to be:........

You know, a land filled with chocolate streams and rainbows where children danced and played in flowery meadows with gumdrop smiles. You know, a land where women weren’t beaten for marrying non-Muslims, and political dissidents weren’t tortured by their LEGITAMENTALLY elected president.

I miss that Iraq, too. :(

You know, ..."200 men, women, and children"

It was suppose to be the year 2003...:flowers:

steady googs babe, steady.

No. Collateral damage or careless warfare do not genocide make.
Saddam wasn't convicted of genocide.Your the one who keeps saying genocide. Whats wrong Evak is that the only charge yuo can think of that the US isn't guilty of in Iraq?

Incorrect, I don't care about the world in its entirety. fuckin Anti-American...

Saddam wasn't convicted of genocide.Your the one who keeps saying genocide. Whats wrong Evak is that the only charge yuo can think of that the US isn't guilty of in Iraq?
Guerilla, that is the topic we are discussing. I did not address any political abuses of the Ba'athist regime or the Bush administration, I addressed your assertion that there was a genocide of Iraqis by the Americans, totaling upwards of 600,000 people.

You used the phrase: "They deliberately and systematically killed the people of Iraq." IOW, a genocide, which you also claimed was nearly twice as great in size as Saddam's genocidal crimes.

I replied with: "I want 100% conclusive evidence that there was a deliberate and systematic extermination of the Iraqi people. You aren't providing evidence of that, you're just pointing out less-than-careful means of warfare; I'm not going to be convinced of your assertion if you just point out collateral damage."

Napsterbater used the argument that it doesn't matter the intent of the killing, as people are dead. That is true that intent doesn't matter in the big scope of things, but it does when it comes to accusations of genocide. An American general ordering carpet bombing of terrorist-laced Fallujah, or ordering troops into remote villages with the intent of killing all civilians, are two different situations and one does not necessarily mean a genocide.

Wasnt there a lot of civilians in Fallujah who admittedly were told to leave, but had nowhere to go.

Genocide is maybe a bit inaccurate. Maybe he should switch to "massacre." Or perhaps, "indiscriminate, large scale slaughter." Would those work?

Genocide is maybe a bit inaccurate. Maybe he should switch to "massacre." Or perhaps, "indiscriminate, large scale slaughter." Would those work?
Those who satisfy me, yes. At least partially.

Who knows what the "death toll" is.. and who knows what constitutes as a "united states-caused death"... Unless we have someone over there with a counter, i really don't put much faith in these death toll numbers...

Both sides will manipulate the number to their advantage.. people like FT will say 600,000.. republicans will say its 100,000 or if that... and we dont even have guidelines. They both COULD be right, but the 600,000 could include indirect little nooks and crannies or different guidelines...

All i say is this.. last i checked, our boys over there aren't going around gunning down innocent civilians... while the FT's make it out that way by slander and painting.. you have to realize the agenda behind their method.

Again You claimed Genocide. not me, why don't you prove it wasn't.

I claimed that the US intentionally killed at least 300,000 people in Iraq.

I already pointed out innocent people always die when you bomb a city. Therefore it was intentional. Not that hard a concept to grasp. It doesn't matter if they were direct targets or not. They were considered "acceptable losses" by the homicidal fucks with bombs. It was intentional.

Maybe if you say genocide one more time it will totally validate your argument. I'll do it for you...genocide. Nope didn't work.

BTW I'd love to see you name any crimes against humanity the US didn't commit (besides genocide, I think we covered that one)

genocide.

Where are guerilla and FT to declare this to be an election year shenanigan concocted by Republicans? It wasn't?

Summary: In their coverage of Saddam Hussein's November 5 guilty verdict, several print news outlets reported U.S. officials' assertions that the announcement had not been timed to coincide with the midterm elections but ignored reporting that conflicts with these denials -- in particular, the fact that the full verdict in Saddam's trial is not set to be released until November 9.
...
The Bush administration has since repeatedly claimed that the U.S. government does not have the power to set the date of the verdict. But as Media Matters for America has noted, some of the media outlets reporting this assertion have left out facts that undermine this claim. For instance, a January 25 Washington Post article reported that the "U.S. Embassy and the U.S. Regime Crimes Liaison Office run much of the day-to-day arrangements for the trial." And a May 21 New York Times article described the "American influence" on the SICT as "undeniably pervasive, with about 90 percent of the $145 million in annual costs for the court and associated investigations paid for by the United States Justice Department, and lawyers sent by Washington acting as advisers."
...
http://mediamatters.org/items/200611060010

genocide.

Again You claimed Genocide. not me, why don't you prove it wasn't.
Oh no, you've caught onto me!
BTW I'd love to see you name any crimes against humanity the US didn't commit (besides genocide, I think we covered that one)
Why would I bother doing that? I know we, like most nations, have committed crimes against humankind in one way or another numerous times. I'm aware of the big offenses, and some of the smaller ones, but as it goes, my outrage for such things isn't as far as yours.

It wasn't?
I'm not ruling out the probability or possibility of such an occurance, I just was playing on your habit of posting articles regarding similar topics.

Who knows what the "death toll" is.. and who knows what constitutes as a "united states-caused death"... Unless we have someone over there with a counter, i really don't put much faith in these death toll numbers...

I don't think anything would really satisfy you Decka, unless it allows you to continue deluding yourself into thinking that the United States isn't capable of wholesale violations of human rights.

I already pointed out innocent people always die when you bomb a city. Therefore it was intentional. Not that hard a concept to grasp. It doesn't matter if they were direct targets or not. They were considered "acceptable losses" by the homicidal fucks with bombs. It was intentional.
I like that line "acceptable losses". That is what a whole life becomes during war. Nothing more than an acceptable loss. All the hopes and dreams and struggles and loves...nothing more than an acceptable loss to someone on the other side. (That includes me too sometimes). Just a statistic. When you really pause over that one...it all seems so...well...simple...just gone...poof. Profound really....poof..............gone.

.. last i checked, our boys over there aren't going around gunning down innocent civilians... while the FT's make it out that way .......

You'd better check again.

There have been several stories of such occurences.

But have I made an issue here of troops "gunning down innocent civilians"?
No.

Do I think it is something endemic among U.S. troops? No. Not at all.

Do I think it is a major problem? No.

Does it happen occasionally? Yes.

And one more thing, Decka, in regards to your comment about my having an agenda......I have exactly ONE agenda concerning the Iraq war; to have the unvarnished truth about what is happening over there exposed for all to see, and let the chips fall where they may.

Every Saturday I go to the Bookies and lay a few bets, horses, soccer, 40 quids worth. If their beat I call it 'acceptable losses'.
An average of 100 Iraqi die everyday thru violent action, nearly 3000 a month, since the invasion, add it up yourselves, 99% of those people would still be alive if America hadnt invaded.

Well, the verdict is in.
That HEADON commercial was less annoying before.
As for Saddam, maybe he should've had the trial moved to Southern California. He'd have a 9AM tee time in Florida by tomorrow.
They could hang the guy within 30 days! In these parts it could take closer to 30 years. Send some Iraqi advisers this way!
First hang the cunt who killed Polly Klass. Then the guy responsible for those Chevy ads with Johnny Cougar (God, a brick to the head over and over would be more subtle.) Then Saddam.
As always, I guess we're supposed to keep pretending like Hussein wasn't our ally in the '80s and that we gave him weapons and looked the other way while he shredded people. Shh.

99% of those people would still be alive if America hadnt invaded.
I beg to differ.

Saddam - Once Washington's 'Best Friend' in the Arab World
------ November 7, 2006 ----- http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article1959051.ece

http://files.blog-city.com//files/aa/2370/p/f/saddam_trial_1.jpg


This was a guilty verdict on America as well

So America's one-time ally has been sentenced to death for war crimes he committed when he was Washington's best friend in the Arab world.

America knew all about his atrocities and even supplied the gas - along with the British, of course - yet there we were yesterday declaring it to be, in the White House's words, another "great day for Iraq".

Of course, it couldn't happen to a better man. Nor a worse. It couldn't be a more just verdict - nor a more hypocritical one.

And so by hanging this awful man, we hope - don't we? - to look better than him, to remind Iraqis that life is better now than it was under Saddam.

Only so ghastly is the hell-disaster that we have inflicted upon Iraq that we cannot even say that. Life is now worse. Or rather, death is now visited upon even more Iraqis than Saddam was able to inflict on his Shias and Kurds and - yes, in Fallujah of all places - his Sunnis, too.

So we cannot even claim moral superiority. For if Saddam's immorality and wickedness are to be the yardstick against which all our iniquities are judged, what does that say about us?

We only sexually abused prisoners and killed a few of them and murdered some suspects and carried out a few rapes and illegally invaded a country which cost Iraq a mere 600,000 lives.

Saddam was much worse. We can't be put on trial. We can't be hanged.


"Allahu Akbar," the awful Hussein shouted - 'God is greater'. No surprise there. He it was who insisted these words should be inscribed upon the Iraqi flag, the same flag which now hangs over the palace of the government that has condemned him after a trial at which the former Iraqi mass murderer was formally forbidden from describing his relationship with Donald Rumsfeld, now George Bush's Secretary of Defence.

Remember that handshake? Nor, of course, was he permitted to talk about the support he received from George Bush Snr, the current US President's father. Little wonder, then, that Iraqi officials claimed last week the Americans had been urging them to sentence Saddam before the mid-term US elections.

<snip>

....... here are a few of the things that Saddam was not allowed to comment upon: sales of chemicals to his Nazi-style regime so blatant - so appalling - that he has been sentenced to hang on a localised massacre of Shias rather than the wholesale gassing of Kurds over which George W Bush and Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara were so exercised when they decided to depose Saddam in 2003 - or was it in 2002? Or 2001?

Some of Saddam's pesticides came from Germany (of course). But on 25 May 1994, the US Senate's Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs produced a report entitled "United States Chemical and Biological Warfare-related Dual-use exports to Iraq and their possible impact on the Health Consequences of the Persian Gulf War".

This was the 1991 war which prompted our liberation of Kuwait, and the report informed Congress about US government-approved shipments of biological agents sent by American companies to Iraq from 1985 or earlier.

These included Bacillus anthracis, which produces anthrax; Clostridium botulinum; Histoplasma capsulatum; Brucella melitensis; Clostridium perfringens and Escherichia coli.

The same report stated that the US provided Saddam with "dual use" licensed materials which assisted in the development of chemical, biological and missile-system programmes, including chemical warfare agent production facility plant and technical drawings (provided as pesticide production facility plans).

Yes, well I can well see why Saddam wasn't permitted to talk about this.

Thank heavens he didn't mention the £200,000 worth of thiodiglycol, one of two components of mustard gas we exported to Baghdad in 1988, and another £50,000 worth of the same vile substances the following year.

We also sent thionyl chloride to Iraq in 1988 at a price of only £26,000. Yes, I know these could be used to make ballpoint ink and fabric dyes.

But this was the same country - Britain - that would, eight years later, prohibit the sale of diphtheria vaccine to Iraqi children on the grounds that it could be used for - you guessed it - "weapons of mass destruction".

But now we are to give the Iraqi people bread and circuses, the final hanging of Saddam, twisting, twisting slowly in the wind.

We have won. We have inflicted justice upon the man whose country we invaded and eviscerated and caused to break apart.

The odd thing is that Iraq is now swamped with mass murderers, guilty of rape and massacre and throat-slitting and torture in the years since our "liberation" of Iraq.

Many of them work for the Iraqi government we are currently supporting, democratically elected, of course.

And these war criminals, in some cases, are paid by us, through the ministries we set up under this democratic government.

And they will not be tried. Or hanged. That is the extent of our cynicism. And our shame. Have ever justice and hypocrisy been so obscenely joined?

____________Robert Fisk, writing for The Independent

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article1959051.ece

seeing articles like this make me sad that people are so out of touch with history.

seeing articles like this make me sad that people are so out of touch with history.

TRANSLATION:

"I cannot refute the article, so I will make a snide -"Oh, that writer's just out of touch with history"- comment and slink away".

_____________________________________________

America knew all about Hussein's atrocities and even supplied the gas....so if Saddam's immorality and wickedness are to be the yardstick against which all iniquities are to be judged, what does that say about America and its leaders?

seeing articles like this make me sad that people are so out of touch with history. we're you peering into a mirror when you said this?

FT - the article may have accurate information, but the author is such a f%#*'n extremist that it pains me to read it. I would be much more swayed by the straight facts than by a few facts constantly interrupted by this guys' rhetoric and annoying opinions.

FT - the article may have accurate information, but the author is such a f%#*'n extremist that it pains me to read it.

I don't think it is the case with you, WindWip, but for many Rightwingers --who have long been accustomed to complete control of America and American society-- a "f*cking extremist" is anyone who speaks bold truths that make them uncomfortable.....or who simply says things that they do not like and do not agree with.

To the British, Washington, Adams, and Jefferson were -- ""f%#*'n extremists".

To the British, Washington, Adams, and Jefferson were -- ""f%#*'n extremists".
To you, too.

I don't think it is the case with you, WindWip, but for many Rightwingers --who have long been accustomed to complete control of America and American society--
*snores*

Yes..........those who are unconscious will sometimes *snore*.

Yes..........those who are unconscious will sometimes *snore*.
*snores*

I don't think it is the case with you, WindWip, but for many Rightwingers --who have long been accustomed to complete control of America and American society-- a "f*cking extremist" is anyone who speaks bold truths that make them uncomfortable.....or who simply says things that they do not like and do not agree with.
FT - I'm a radical and I'm turned off by the articles you post. They do nothing for discussion and everything for preaching to the choir. This is why you are laughed at and not taken seriously (that and theres equally indoctrinated posters on other sides).

Although this article isn't so bad. It just reads as more of an opinion, then informational piece, that people are unlikely to take it as fact. There's too much side commontary.