Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead (29 Dec 2006)

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 12:28 PM

It will be interesting to see the outcome

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: GUEST,Professor Yaffle
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 10:37 AM

If you don't mind, I feel that I must intervene in this exercise. It seems clear to me that poor Teribus has been holding the wrong end of the stick for some considerable time, and that the general tenor of discussion here has resorted to little more than bullying.
Look, you've backed him into a corner and made him look stupid. Isn't that enough? If you hold off for a bit now, he'll probably summon up the gumption to admit his egregious errors and we can all get down to some decent discussion over the toasted teacakes.
Ah, and Sugarplum; see me in my rooms after tea!

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: GUEST,Another irritating nitpicker
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 10:31 AM

state-based conflicts is what that report is all about.
What's that got to do with global terrorism?
C'mon Terrible, you're losing your touch!

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: GUEST,the Sugarplum Fairy
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 10:27 AM

Terribus, my little sweetheart, would I be wrong in assuming that the frightfully clever Professor Mack is talking about 'wars' in his report?
And that the phrase 'world a safer place' is not his phrase - it was written by whichever sub-editor slugged the precis written by by a reporter called Francis Harris in Washington.
As such, Prof Mack is merely saying that, up until 2003, there seemed to be fewer wars.
Acts of terrorism are another kettle of fish entirely, my little flower, as I'm sure you'd know.
Unless, of course, you are a brave little footsoldier in Bush's great legacy, 'the war against terror' - known to all of us in the Dingly Dell School for Strategic Studies as TWAT.
Are you proud to be a fellow TWAT?

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: GUEST,The Chocolate Soldier
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 10:20 AM

Most of the data gathered ended in 2003, the last full year for which statistics were available. That means that most of the deaths caused by the war in Iraq are not included. But by the standards of the bloodiest conflicts since the end of the Second World War, the deaths in Iraq are relatively few. About 27,000 Iraqis and Americans have died.

So, you're citing a piece of research that is based on data collected before the uprising in Fallujah, and before the onset of the current civil war in Iraq and its concommitant attraction of every out of town jihadist from here to Margate? And before the resurgance of Taliban violence in Afghanistan.
It's a bit like picking a similar piece or research based on data collected in February 1914. "Ooh look, Gertrude, it says it's all turning out rosy. That's nice...let's go and by a little gite in Ypres."

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 09:57 AM

Sugarplum,

Take it up with a Professor Andrew Mack of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, here is how it was reported:

"World is a safer place despite people's fears
By Francis Harris in Washington
Last Updated: 2:18am BST 19/10/2005

Widespread fears about a world in a perpetual state of war are unfounded, a study says today. It emphasises that the number of conflicts between nations, civil wars, battle deaths, coups and genocides has been falling steeply for more than a decade.

While the authors note that bloody wars continue in Iraq, Afghanistan and Congo, they argue that there are substantial grounds for optimism.

The first Human Security Report, written by academics led by Andrew Mack, of the University of British Columbia, cites popular notions that war is becoming more common and deadlier, that genocide is rising and that terrorism poses the greatest threat to humanity.

"Not one of these claims is based on reliable data," it says. "All are suspect; some are demonstrably false. Yet they are widely believed because they reinforce popular assumptions."

The authors say there are 40 per cent fewer armed conflicts than in the early 1990s. Between 1991 and last year 28 wars for self-determination began but 43 were ended or contained.

In 1992, when the Yugoslav wars of secession began, there were 51 state-based conflicts around the world. The figure dropped to 32 in 2002 and 29 in 2003. The arms trade declined by a third from 1990 to 2003 and the number of refugees fell by 45 per cent between 1992 and 2003.

In 1950 each conflict killed 38,000 people on average. By 2002 that had dropped to 600.

However, the report, which was funded by five nations including Britain, says that the potential for a major upsurge in violence remains.

"The risk of new wars breaking out or old ones resuming is very real in the absence of a sustained and strengthened commitment to conflict prevention and post-conflict peace-building," the authors say.

Most of the data gathered ended in 2003, the last full year for which statistics were available. That means that most of the deaths caused by the war in Iraq are not included. But by the standards of the bloodiest conflicts since the end of the Second World War, the deaths in Iraq are relatively few. About 27,000 Iraqis and Americans have died.

Major conflicts of the past 60 years, including Algeria, Korea, Vietnam, Congo and Sudan have killed between 400,000 and two million.

Prof Mack, an Australian former United Nations official, attributes much of the success in ending conflict to UN peacekeeping operations.

The reduction in war is also attributable to the end of the Cold War, he says. From 1945 to 1989, many local conflicts were aggravated by the intervention of the two great power blocs."

The remainder of your post was complete and utter drivel, so merits no response at all.

Now you have been given the source of the report, note report sugarplum - not opinion, and the name and location of the man responsible for the work that went into it. If you really are interested, please feel free to pursue the matter.

Somehow I don't think you will, as I believe that you are one of those who believe as you do in order to prop up popular miconceptions based on popular notions and popular assumptions. Well they may be popular - but that does not necessarily make them correct - the factual evidence and statistics studied by Professor Mack's group on behalf of the UN seems to indicate that those popularly held notions and assumptions are incorrect.

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: GUEST,Micky the Matelot
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 09:45 AM

"In the past in accordance with UK regulations, in a firing squad only one man is given a live round, all the rest are blanks, the man firing the live round does not know that he has fired the live round, all he knows is that he is part of the firing squad."
You've gone so far up your own arse you're now quoting yourself!
And it's still bollocks.
Where did you dredge that twaddle up? What regulation? King's Regs 1913? The Army Act?
I'm afraid, ducky, that like a lot of your 'facts' it's just plain wrong.

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 09:31 AM

"In the past in accordance with UK regulations, in a firing squad only one man is given a live round, all the rest are blanks, the man firing the live round does not know that he has fired the live round, all he knows is that he is part of the firing squad."

Eh, Guest, can you tell me anywhere why UK regulations would apply to a firing squad (presumably civilian?) in the State of Utah??

Irrespective you miss the point, it doesn't matter if it is one bullet or one blank. The State is responsible for the execution of sentence, either way, as pointed out each member of the firing party can lay claim to the fact that he did not fire the fatal shot or shots - True?

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: GUEST,The sugarplum fairy
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 08:14 AM

Doesn't alter any of the facts in what I have stated though - Does it?
Teribus, poppet, most of the time you're not stating facts, you're stating opinions. Other people's opinions. Can you point me in the direction of the 'fact' ascertained by the academics from Vancouver and Upsalla which produced the ineluctable conclusion that the world was safe?
Just because someone else says it, doesn't make it true. If all you can do is yap the words of others, we're not going to get very far, and you're demeaning yourself to the level of a parrot that can't comprehend the obscenities it squawks.
I can find citations which will claim that the Nazis did not murder Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and dissidents, but that doesn't make them right. I can find citations which claim that evolution is impossible, but that doesn't make them right. I can find citations which state that Saddam had WMDs, but that doesn't make them right.
You can trawl up all sorts of references in an attempt to bamboozle and bluster, my little gillie-flower, but you're not going to be able to turn black into white or base metal into gold.

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 08:06 AM

When and where? Cite reference please.
John Taylor was shot in the state of Utah by a firing squad on January 26, 1996. From dedsignated media witness Paul Murphy of KTVX-TV Salt Lake: "Five riflemen standing 23 feet away fired the standard Winchester Model 94 rifles. Four of these were loaded with a single Winchester Silver Tip 150-grain .30-.30 bullet, while the fifth contained a blank round."
That still seems to be the norm.
Admit it, Teribus, you just got it wrong.

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 08:05 AM

Dear Nameless unidentified,

All very well dear-heart that well may apply to "Islamic Terrorism", now what do they say about "Islamic Fundamentalism" which was the factor raised by Akenaton.

Or do you too, like Akenaton subscribe to the belief that all "Islamic Fundamentalists" are "Islamic Terrorists".

The findings of the UN Study mentioned are a matter of record, if you have any dispute, or can offer any convincing data to challenge their conclusions I would advise you to take it up with the learned bodies identified (University of Vancouver in British Columbia, Canada and Uppsala University of Sweden) as you seem to suggest that you place weight behind learned and "better informed" people. Doesn't alter any of the facts in what I have stated though - Does it?

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 07:56 AM

GUEST 03 Jan 07 - 07:47 AM

"Only one live round for a firing party?

Bollocks!

In the Great War,"

Don't dispute what you say for one minute, I however was talking about more recent times, my apologies for not making that clearer.

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: GUEST,Nameless, unidentified
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 07:54 AM

"The risk to western civilian populations from Islamic terrorism is greater now than it was before the invasion of Iraq" - just about every commentator around, including Sir Ian Blair, commissioner of the Metropolitan Police (and, just possibly, rather better informed than you, Teribus, or the sage academics of Upsydaisy).

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 07:51 AM

Like I said GUEST,The Good Soldier - 03 Jan 07 - 07:09 AM - on your part that's rather pathetic don't you think?

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 07:47 AM

Only one live round for a firing party?

Bollocks!

In the Great War, firing squads had one blank round loaded into one of the rifles, so everyone could kid themselves that they didn't fire the fatal shot. Unfortunately anyone who has done any shooting will know immediately from the recoil if they've just loosed off a blank, so the practise was rather pointless.
It's documented in Martin Middlebrook's excellent "The First Day on the Somme", recounting the testimony of Private Paddy Kennedy, 3rd Manchester Pals, 30th Division.

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 07:46 AM

Nameless, unidentified GUEST, of 03 Jan 07 - 07:08 AM.

I would have thought as someone posting to a discussion forum the answer to your question should be obvious - If discussing civilian deaths in Iraq as part of a topic the most realistic and accurate figure should be used as basis for discussion.

To answer your questions from my own personal point of view:

- Which of those figures makes you happiest? None, I take no pleasure in the death of any human being. I can however see the need that some human beings must die (Saddam falling into this category)

- In war civilian casualties are unfortunately inevitable but all are unacceptable

- "In general the world is a much safer place now than at any time since the end of the second world war" - Findings of a UN Study conducted by Vancouver University and Uppsala University, Sweden.

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 07:33 AM

akenaton post of 02 Jan 07 - 10:13 PM, to which Peter K (Fionn) exclaimed - "Well said, Akenaton."

If you want to talk about "sheer piffle", absolute piffle, or even mere piffle, then I would agree with you Akenaton's post I would firmly lodge in the category of "complete and utter piffle"


"This is Iraq (No shit Sherlock). I believe they are trying to be a Western-styled democracy (Are They?). They need to find their own way: one which will fit in with the civilized world (Well Akenaton let them get on with it - they certainly couldn't under Saddam Hussein)."

Iraq is a tribal society contorted by religious fundamentalism (Your evidence of this is what exactly? Does it apply right across the board in Iraq, or only to the Arab population?. Evidence would seen to suggest only the latter)
The "civilised world" in the shape of America and Britain have turned it into a butchers shop (Eh? No Akenaton, it was a Butcher's Shop long before). we have recruited more converts to islamic fundamentalism in three years, than Osama could have managed in a lifetime (And what exactly are they doing Akenaton? Are you trying to tell this Forum that all Islamic Fundamentalists are terrorists? Are you stating that we should be afraid of them? Evidence again would seem to suggest that Muslin Arabs of whatever sect have more to fear from Islamic Fundamentalists than anybody else?).
Interesting to see Teribus and his ilk praise our strategy of training and arming the Shia, who by and large owe their allegiance to their fundamentalist leaders, not Western style "democracy" (Refer to your own point of Iraqi's need to find their own way Akenaton - Iraqi Police Force and Army are open to entry by all - True?).

Islamic fundamentalism was always the biggest danger to those who run Western "democracy"....They underestimated the madness of religious conviction (This really is the funniest thing that I've read for ages - Sorry Akenaton history is against you on this one).
These people really believe in a god and are prepared to put their lives on the line for that belief (Yes I know Akenaton, they have been so manipulated and exploited for centuries and their belief and willingness to put their lives on the line resulted in their deaths by the thousand at Tours and at the gates of Vienna. It caused them to be ejected from Spain and by-passed by the western" world in terms of science and history - Now tell me how this resurgence theory of yours works and why we must be so cowed by these fundamentalists?).
No one of sound mind in the West really believes and we are weakened by the lack of will...Ake (You and those who think like you Akenaton may lack will - Thankfully others are not so spineless).

Peter K (Fionn), please confirm whether or not you have actually witnessed an execution anywhere in the United States of America, or anywhere else.

It is normal in the US that victims relatives/those with an interest in the case/Press are invited to witness execution of sentence. They DO NOT see the man who throws the switch (electric chair) that is done by discrete signal. They DO NOT SEE the man who administers the lethal injection. They DO NOT SEE the man who inserts the pellets into the gas chamber.

In the past in accordance with UK regulations, in a firing squad only one man is given a live round, all the rest are blanks, the man firing the live round does not know that he has fired the live round, all he knows is that he is part of the firing squad.

While you may well come up with the odd exception the rule is generally that the convicted man is killed by the legal system of the state and symbolically he is killed by a "faceless" person, an anonymous person. This protects that person from retaliation and reprisals.

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: GUEST,The Good Soldier
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 07:09 AM

Ah yes, we were betrayed. By the Bolsheviks and the Jews. With their lies they poisoned discourse. Bravely, I try to carry the torch, bringing the light of truth to a darkened world. I may be alone; a weak and feeble voice of reason amid the barbarian clamour, but a thousand years hence people will be able to look back and see that I was right.

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 07:08 AM

Iraqi fatalities resulting from the Desert Storm bombing campaign were put at about 150,000 (Iraqi Government Figures) of that number 35,000 Iraqi civilians had died. During the March 2003 invasion (The period of your supposed "Shock and Awe" campaign) Abu Dhabi TV reported on April 8 that Iraqi sources claimed 1,252 civilians had been killed and 5,103 had been wounded in this conflict. The antiwar IraqBodyCount project, via monitoring and compiling media reports of Iraqi civilian casualties, estimates between 1,631 and 1,887 civilians had died as of April 17.

So, which of those figures makes you happiest? Shall we take the lowest mentioned civilian figure of 1,252. Is that acceptable? Are you happy with that as the bill for this oh-so-necessary war? This war that has made us all safer? Are they just the poor, unfortunate eggs that make the omelette?

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 06:55 AM

Noted GUEST of 03 Jan 07 - 05:51 AM, that you have not challenged anything that I have said, you have not offered any sort of counter arguement whatsoever. What exactly is the point that you are trying to make? Or are you only capable of mounting personal attacks?

Should I get upset about this? Naw, don't think so, although I would have liked to have seen the reaction of those on this forum if I had likened anybody to, how did Guest put it;

"oh-so-diligent civil servants and researchers who furnished the Nazis with their facts and figures to justify the race laws; beavering away at the coalface of obfuscation to furnish enough half-truths to shore up an edifice of pure evil.
Like those good men Falk Ruttke, Arthur Gütt and Ernst Rüdin, he freely gives of his erudition for the benefit of all."

No Guest, far from shoring up any edifice of pure evil, I object mightily when time after time, in thread after thread, the same old left-wing, anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-Blair lies and misrepresentations appear as fact in what is presented as reasoned arguement. When confronted by facts that disprove those dearly held myths, the response is commonly and frighteningly similar to your own, nothing challenged and nothing offered by way of counter arguement, all you are left with is personal attack - on your part that's rather pathetic don't you think?

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 06:02 AM

Well said, Akenaton.

Teribus: sometimes, at least, your pontifications are sheer piffle. You know perfectly well that Saddam's was not a public execution. But as with executions in Britain, when they were still undertaken, witnesses were present. What is the difference?

Incidentally, executions in the US are not public either, though they are sometimes attended by ghouls in sufficient numbers to warrant theatre-style seating. Yet even when it comes to these semi-public showings in America, I know of specific cases where executioners were not masked (the killing - one might as well say murder - of Bruno Hauptmann for instance) where the executioner did not hide behind a mask. I had rather assumed from that, and from the depiction of execution scenes in movies, that this is the norm in the US.

But I must be wrong, because Teribus said: "...it has always been the case that the executioner's face is masked."

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 05:51 AM

GUEST,ifor - 02 Jan 07 - 12:27 PM

I do not believe that I am fleeing in the face of FACTS, quite the contrary. On the other hand I do believe that that you seem incapable of recognising a fact when it stares you in the face - Example - Over a period of seventeen years Soviet Russia provides 68.9% of ALL weapons to Saddam Hussein, while during the same period the USA provides Saddam Hussein with 0.5% of ALL weapons - According to you USA was the major supporter and provider of weapons to Saddam Hussein - Now I would say that the facts state otherwise.

Now for the points made in your post:

"Shock and Awe was opened with the launching of hundreds of cruise missiles and thousands of bombs dropped from the big bombers based in Britain and elsewhere."

Certainly the campaign was opened with such an aerial assault, but that was not "Shock and Awe". Now go away and find out how long that level of attack was maintained for. Once you have done that, compare that to the bombing campaign that was employed as the opening to Desert Storm (Two months). Also compare targets, when you have done that you will see clearly the difference between the two, the first, Desert Storm, WAS "Shock and Awe", the latter campaign was not, it couldn't be for very well founded reasons.

"The missiles and bombs blew up mosques,markets,apartment blocks and hospitals.It was a ghastly and indiscriminate attack on the civilian population of Baghdad.There were many casualties."

Incorrect, estimated Iraqi fatalities resulting from the Desert Storm bombing campaign were put at about 150,000 (Iraqi Government Figures) of that number 35,000 Iraqi civilians had died. During the March 2003 invasion (The period of your supposed "Shock and Awe" campaign) Abu Dhabi TV reported on April 8 that Iraqi sources claimed 1,252 civilians had been killed and 5,103 had been wounded in this conflict. The antiwar IraqBodyCount project, via monitoring and compiling media reports of Iraqi civilian casualties, estimates between 1,631 and 1,887 civilians had died as of April 17.

By the way, do not confuse the terms "Casualties" and "Fatalities". Casualties = Dead + Wounded; Fatalities = Dead only.

Now Ifor, logically tell me why it would be that "Shock and Awe" could be used in 1991, but could not be used in 2003. There is a perfectly logical reason, now you demonstrate to all on this forum, your ability to examine facts and come up with a reasoned logical explanation, not one born of emotion, rhetoric and myth.

Oh, and Ifor just because, "...media commentators boasted about Shock and Awe at the time" does not necessarily mean that it happened, or are you one of the many who implicitly believe EVERYTHING you read in the newspapers.

I also see now that YOU personally now attribute all of the John Hopkins WAG ballpark figure of 630,000 "Deaths" to this latest campaign, by, "death squads, phospherous shells, napalm , depleted uranium munitions, torture, kidnappings,sexual assaults and the indiscriminate fire of US soldiers and mercenaries alike". Well I hate to tell you this Ifor but NOT EVEN the statisticians at John Hopkins would go along with that.

GUEST,ifor - 02 Jan 07 - 04:13 PM - your response to Slag:

"The 630000 deaths I mentioned in a previous posting comes from that well known Baathist organisation The John Hokins University in America which has conducted a survey of Iraqi households to arrive at that round figure."

Oh, Ifor would that they actually had "conducted a survey of Iraqi households", which, I know, sort of gives the impression that this was an extensive survey carried out nationwide throughout Iraq. It wasn't Ifor it was "batch" sampling in selected areas, John Hopkins did not have their people carrying out this survey, and those carrying-out this survey on behalf John Hopkins did not even bother to obtain confirmation of actual deaths. There was no cross-check made to filter out duplication of data from surveyors talking to different members of the same family about deaths within that family.

By the way Ifor, I am still waiting for something from you, and anybody else who waves this highly inaccurate and discredited statistic about like a flag as being the gospel truth, is an acknowledgement, that what the John Hopkins Study ACTUALLY STATES is that XXX Iraqi Civilians MAY HAVE DIED - It DOES NOT state that XXX Iraqi Civilians HAVE DIED. I take it that you have actually read the Lancet Article where the Report was published? Or is this just something that you picked up because it happens to be something you would like to believe because it suits your purpose.

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 05:51 AM

Teribus will probably be trawling for factoids to justify the war when the US Army has swept on into Iran and the Middle East is aflame from Isfahan to Damascus.
His almost obsessive behaviour reminds me of those oh-so-diligent civil servants and researchers who furnished the Nazis with their facts and figures to justify the race laws; beavering away at the coalface of obfuscation to furnish enough half-truths to shore up an edifice of pure evil.
Like those good men Falk Ruttke, Arthur Gütt and Ernst Rüdin, he freely gives of his erudition for the benefit of all. One day, perhaps, this useful idiot will awaken and - I hope - hang his head at the enormity of his advocacy.

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 04:04 AM

Part of the rise of fundamentalism in the Middle East is the failure of secular organisations and political parties to challenge successfully the tyrants who have ruled many of these countries.

In Iraq , for example, the communist party ,which cut across religious and sectarian lines in terms of both its memebership and leadership, was all but destroyed by Saddam using lists and addresses provided by the CIA.The communists and their families were arrested,tortured and executed.

Its tragic failure opened the door to religious parties and organisations to organise against Saddam and his Baathist party.
ifor

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 10:31 PM

The footage of the hanging is on YouTube if you have the stomach for that.

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 10:13 PM

"This is Iraq. I believe they are trying to be a Western-styled democray. They need to find their own way: one which will fit in with the civilized world."

Iraq is a tribal society contorted by religious fundamentalism.
The "civilised world"in the shape of America and Britain have turned it into a butchers shop. we have recruited more converts to islamic fundamentalism in three years, than Osama could have managed in a lifetime.
Interesting to see Teribus and his ilk praise our strategy of training and arming the Shia, who by and large owe their allegiance to their fundamentalist leaders, not Western style "democracy".

Islamic fundamentalism was always the biggest danger to those who run Western "democracy"....They underestimated the madness of religious conviction.
These people really believe in a god and are prepared to put their lives on the line for that belief.
No one of sound mind in the West really believes and we are weakened by the lack of will...Ake

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: Slag
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 09:21 PM

I'm not sure that US pressure to put a Western face of perfunctoriness on the affair was in play here. Our culture would like to see a dispassionate performance of a state responsibility. This is Iraq. I believe they are trying to be a Western-styled democray. They need to find their own way: one which will fit in with the civilized world. Mistakes will be made. I don't like to see anyone's well intentioned enterprize fail so I'm all for Iraq getting it right and getting a new start that will serve their people and the region. Constructive criticism and encouragement are needed and not a desire to see them fail.

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 09:09 PM

Transcript of the taunts.

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: Charley Noble
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 09:02 PM

The "cell-phone video" gives this story real legs. I'm not sure what some of the witnesses were shouting at Saddam before he was hanged but I somehow doubt that it was complimentary.

I believe there was some plan that this would be a "dignified" execution that would not provide more ammunition for Sunni/Shihii violence. Well, so much for that plan!

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 04:13 PM

reply to slag
........what a sad comment.I have not been a bullyboy on this thread but have pointed out the plain truth that Bush and Blair are a pair of war criminals and that successive American and British governments are up to their necks in the blood and gore of the Iraqi people.
The 630000 deaths I mentioned in a previous posting comes from that well known Baathist organisation The John Hokins University in America which has conducted a survey of Iraqi households to arrive at that round figure.
Ifor

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: Slag
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 03:48 PM

The hooded or masked executioner is meant to denote that the faceles aspect of the state is carrying out the sentence; not an individual. Beheading was thought at one time to be the quickest, most humane way to dispatch the condemned and it was also considered to be the most diginfied death. The hanged man was acursed and was often left hanging as a warning to those who would defy the crown, None of the symbolisms are hard and fast and there are many variations. The protection of the executioner's identity was originally to protect him and his family from revenge.

The dignity that was AFFORDED to Saddam was a far cry from the vicious murders he and his sona and henchmen perpatrated against their own countrymen and even family members and it certainly was in sharp contrast to the terrorist who were definitely hiding behind masks as they sawed the heads off their kidnap victims for their audience's viewing pleasure on Al Jezera (sp?) and the internet.

I am SHOCKED and AWED at Ifor's disputation of facts. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Good luck arguing facts Teribus. Ifor's idea of an intelligent conversation seems to be "You agree with me or else."

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 03:21 PM

href="http://marchforjustice.com/shock&awe.php">Lovely Photo Gallery :

"The Pentagon now predicts that the Iraq blitzkrieg could approximate the devastation of a nuclear explosion. "The sheer size of this has never been ... contemplated before," one Pentagon strategist boasted to CBS News. "There will not be a safe place in Baghdad."

"The Pentagon dubbed its cold-blooded attack plan "Shock and Awe," a bizarre conjunction of trauma and admiration."

http://www.alternet.org/story/15027/
So Their Plans Went Awry?

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 02:47 PM

Teribus, you said:

"Now then Peter K (Fionn), can you tell us all why, executioners at public executions, or at executions where members of the judiciary/public are present, are either not seen, or are masked? There is a specific reason for it."

As you presumably know the reason for it, why don't you tell us? I, for one, would be interested to know.

A lot of the facts you present to us are somewhat masked by your abrasive & offensive manner, IMO.

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 02:47 PM

"630000 civilian dead "


basis? Or is this like the 3 million Southeast Asians that Canada will be killing over the next 30 years with asbestos poisoning- a WAG?

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 02:37 PM

Now that the cell-phone video has been made public, what do you think of the government that executed Saddam?

Seems to me that the 'secret' video was designed to increase sectarian violence. With such a high-level execution, you'd think they would make sure no recording devises would be allowed. I can't even take a bottle of shampoo on board an airline but someone can take a recording devise to an execution? What gives?

Do you believe the recorded comments to be factual?

I am having a hard time with the whole televised aspect of this execution. I can never remember a time when an execution was televised for the world. Whats up with this?

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 12:27 PM

Teribus
...You are fleeing in the face of the facts when you deny the Shock and Awe attack on Iraq which began the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Shock and Awe was opened with the launching of hundreds of cruise missiles and thousands of bombs dropped from the big bombers based in Britain and elsewhere.

The missiles and bombs blew up mosques,markets,apartment blocks and hospitals.It was a ghastly and indiscriminate attack on the civilian population of Baghdad.There were many casualties.

The US military and media commentators boasted about Shock and Awe at the time but even that carnage has been overlaid with the further suffering inflicted on the Iraqi civilian population through the use of death squads, phospherous shells,napalm , depleted uranium munitions,torture ,kidnappings,sexual assaults and the indiscriminate fire of US soldiers and mercenaries alike.630000 civilian dead and no end insight to the occupation and the bloodbath.
Ifor

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 11:55 AM

Peter K (Fionn) - 02 Jan 07 - 11:36 AM

With regard to my pomposity Peter K (Fionn), executioners at all public executions were normally masked. British executioners of the 20th century, such as Syd Dernley and Albert Pierrepoint, did not hide behind masks, due mainly to the fact that those executions were conducted in private, with no members of the general public, or photographers present - TRUE?

Now then Peter K (Fionn), can you tell us all why, executioners at public executions, or at executions where members of the judiciary/public are present, are either not seen, or are masked? There is a specific reason for it.

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: Rapparee
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 11:43 AM

If you are going to execute someone do so quickly, as humanely as possible, and with dignity.

Saddam Hussein was the only person who exhibited dignity....

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 11:41 AM

Well let's see, GUEST,Lily - 01 Jan 07 - 05:59 PM

"I doubt very much if Teribus and Beardedbruce will ever be convinced when the proof is there for all to see,"

OK what about all this proof.

Sale of "dual purpose" materials. Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture approaches the US for chemicals required to make fertiliser, do you sell it to them? Iraqi Ministry of Health approaches a German Company for X-ray machines, do you sell them to them?

Of course you do, those sales taken at face value are entirely innocent, everything appears to be in order. Doesn't alter the fact that Saddam used the first to assist in the manufacture of WMD, and the latter could be modified to provide triggers for nuclear weapons.

Now Iran/Iraq War started when, good people?

US's first approach, by means of a unofficial "civilian" contact was when? - The Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam Hussein - No official diplomatic links existed between Iraq and the USA from 1967 to this date.

The samples, "the U.S. Government provided nearly two dozen viral and bacterial samples to Iraqi scientists in 1985--samples that included the plague, botulism, and anthrax, among other deadly diseases. According to the letter from Dr. Satcher to former Senator Donald Riegle, many of the materials were hand carried by an Iraqi scientist to Iraq after he had spent 3 months training in the CDC laboratory."

Absolutely correct, they did, the entire consignment was shipped to Iraq as the carry-on cabin luggage of one Iraqi scientist. The purpose of the shipment, was to bolster Iraqi defence against Chemical & Bacteriological/Biological attack by Iran, who also were armed with such weapons. CDC, remember good people, those initials stand for Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - it is part of the US Department of Health and Human Services, apart from being a Government Department it has no link or official tie-up to the Pentagon. The technical support and assistance, received by Iraq to produce these agents and the means to weaponise them coming from Soviet Russia. Let me recap again between 1973 and 1990 Russia supplied Iraq/Saddam with 68.9% of his weaponry while the USA supplied 0.5%. Very convincing figures indeed if it happens to be proof you want to consider.

Another great left-wing, anti-war, anti-Bush myth, relates to "Shock and Awe" that Ifor seems to be so worked up about. While a "Shock and Awe" campaign was unleashed in 1991 against Iraqi cities and infrastructure, no such campaign was used in 2003. I can remember vaguely Bobert quoting some article written by a guy with a weird Doctorate of Divinity stating that the US were going to use nuclear weapons as part of a "Shock and Awe" bombardment of Iraq, in which tens of thousands of Patriot Missiles were going to rain down on Iraq. Never actually happened of course, the statistics just don't back it up. But it does explain one thing. coming to think of it:

- If you have managed to convince yourself that there was indeed a "Shock and Awe" bombardment, when in actual fact there wasn't

- Then you might just believe that the figures given out as a very shakey estimate by John Hopkins might just be real, even when those responsible for drawing up that report state that they providing estimates not factual figures.

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 11:40 AM

Thought Teribus always posted against guys wearing balaclavas ?

Maybe just some of them.

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 11:36 AM

"Now Growler, if you dispute this point of mine you damn well come with come with some fact to back up your contentions. I don't think that you will because the weight of fact lies behind my arguement.

My word, the pomposity of Teribus is something to behold. The same Teribus who asserted, as casually as you like, that executioners have always been masked. Was he talking about executions in the short-lived history of Iraq, or executions wherever he lives? Or perhaps executions in 16th century England? He is surely aware that British executioners of the 20th century, such as Syd Dernley and Albert Pierrepoint, did not hide behind masks?

Chris B wonderfully captured the sordidness of the whole affair: a schoolteacher executed by a gang of taxi-drivers. Saddam died bravely, with dignity, at the hands of an anfantile rabble. Nothing whatsoever to do with Pontius Pilate Bush, of course, whose agents merely handed over the living Saddam to that rabble, and called back later for the dead one.

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: GUEST,Alan
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 10:01 AM

He had to answer for his crimes against humanity.

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 09:00 AM

According to the Wall St Journal today, Maliki's own attitudes give the lie to his supposed concessions to Sunnis. Not good.

If he doesn't change, Iraq will do nothing but sink lower into chaos.

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 02:56 AM

Reply to Slag
The main perspective from the view of the US administration and its Big Business allies has always been about the control of oil and other strategic resources together with the maintenance of US military and economic interests.
The democratic wishes of the people of Iraq or indeed other regions in the world have not come into it at all.
We have seen this in the long nightmare in Iraq but also in countries like Chile,Indonesia Vietnam and Nicaragua where governments have unleashed barbarism to support local killers and protect US business interests.
There has been plenty of opposition from inside America itself to these policies which we have seen in for example the anti war movements against the Vietnam war and the current US occupation of Iraq.
Ifor

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: Slag
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 02:27 AM

Well, there is a lot of factual information in there and some unfounded but understandable opinion too. Like I said earlier, the US has a knack for picking and backing "winners". On the other hand, what are you going to do? Look at the chaotic situationas a whole. Look at what we had to choose from. The best scenario from our prospective would be to have a democratically chosen leader who could work with all the interested factions. Instead we got a "megalomaniac" who was unpredictable. There was and are a lot of jokers in the deck. You play the hand dealt to you the best you can.

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 12:08 AM

Hey, folks, the link that Alice gave is worth following. It is damning.

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: Slag
Date: 01 Jan 07 - 09:44 PM

re growler: Huh? parameters? inquiries? what are you on about?

ifor, quick, before the next bloody conflict, tell us all who else the US supplied weapons grade disease strains and poison gasses to. That way you will be able to say, "See, I told you so!"

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: growler
Date: 01 Jan 07 - 06:06 PM

Teribus and Slag
   I am fully aware of the peramiters that enquiries of this kind have to keep within. but, this ignores the interferance by cabinet and the bullying of so called 'Political Advisers'

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: GUEST,Lily
Date: 01 Jan 07 - 05:59 PM

I doubt very much if Teribus and Beardedbruce will ever be convinced when the proof is there for all to see, it makes no difference, some very strange people on this Site.

Subject: RE: Obit: Saddam Hussein Dead
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Jan 07 - 05:15 PM

"Operation Shock and Awe was an illegal and murderous act of war."


Actually not, but noone want to dig that up , as most here agreed to disagree about it.


"you are like some parrot of the Pentagon"


You can say that I SOUND like some parrot of the Pentagon, but unless you have some evidence, accuse me at your own risk- the black helicopters will be coming to get you....


I guess you think it is valid to accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being in the pay/influence of those whose policies you disagree with: Ever consider that others might just have different opinions about the facts?


And you certainly qualify as chum to me... but I have no need at present for sharkbait.