Liverpool FC Forum

by **67-1161385641** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:59 pm

shanks72 wrote:I am against the death penalty too, without exception, and don't believe anyone has the right to take another person's life, not even the law itself.

Saddam is obviously guilty of his crimes, but I agree that making him suffer in this world is by far the more satisfying and 'safe' option.

It's ashame other's don't think that way. Either way there will be a civil war in Iraq, it's inevitable.

by **metalhead** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:13 pm

ironic that the americans who put saddam in the first place, now wants him executed

by **Hebz** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:47 pm

at the end of the day, two wrongs don't make a right. Saddam in his own way has been apart of genocide, just like Blair and Bush. The fact that Saddam went into hiding made matters worse, because of that world wide man hunt.

He's killed so many people, and people pity him? Life in prison would be easy for him, a reckon a death penalty's the easiest way out for him, and us. Just so we can't listen to the news drag it on and on.

I don't agree with the death penalty at all, but this man has caused so much pain to so many people. Hang him!

by **JBG** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:46 pm

Hebz wrote:at the end of the day, two wrongs don't make a right. Saddam in his own way has been apart of genocide, just like Blair and Bush.

In fairness, that word is a bit strong, and depicting every attrocity as "genocide" demeans the word and demeans true incidents of genocide.

Saddam cracked down on Kurds and Shi'ites but there is no evidence of any plan for their elimination as races.

Also, whatever Bush and Blair are guilty of, its certainly not genocide.

Genocide is where there is a concerted plan to eradicate and exterminate a race or group of people, such as the Holocaust, Serbian ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and the Turkish actions against the Armenians in 1915. It normally takes the form of mass executions, widespread ethnic cleansing through forced marches, deportation and terror, sterilisation of males, laws forbidding property ownership, the eradication of civil rights and the seizure of personal belongings and businesses, ALL with the aim of massively depopulating or exterminating a particular group.

While Saddam carried out awful crimes against the Kurds and then against the Shi'ites, these took the form of revenge attacks and attempts to crack down on internal dissent.

The closest thing Saddam came to genocide was his attacks on the Marsh Arabs in 1991 to 1993, when he dammed up the rivers and electrofied the water in the Marsh Arab areas of sothern Iraq in an attempt to quell the 1991 Shi'ite uprising. There is still no concrete evidence that he sought to complete exterminate the Marsh Arabs as an ethnic group.

by **account deleted by request** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 5:38 pm

Sadam's decision

by **account deleted by request** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 5:42 pm

Saddam has escaped!

by **JBG** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:37 pm

by **67-1161385641** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:10 pm

JBG wrote:
Hebz wrote:at the end of the day, two wrongs don't make a right. Saddam in his own way has been apart of genocide, just like Blair and Bush.

In fairness, that word is a bit strong, and depicting every attrocity as "genocide" demeans the word and demeans true incidents of genocide.

Saddam cracked down on Kurds and Shi'ites but there is no evidence of any plan for their elimination as races.

Also, whatever Bush and Blair are guilty of, its certainly not genocide.

Genocide is where there is a concerted plan to eradicate and exterminate a race or group of people, such as the Holocaust, Serbian ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and the Turkish actions against the Armenians in 1915. It normally takes the form of mass executions, widespread ethnic cleansing through forced marches, deportation and terror, sterilisation of males, laws forbidding property ownership, the eradication of civil rights and the seizure of personal belongings and businesses, ALL with the aim of massively depopulating or exterminating a particular group.

While Saddam carried out awful crimes against the Kurds and then against the Shi'ites, these took the form of revenge attacks and attempts to crack down on internal dissent.

The closest thing Saddam came to genocide was his attacks on the Marsh Arabs in 1991 to 1993, when he dammed up the rivers and electrofied the water in the Marsh Arab areas of sothern Iraq in an attempt to quell the 1991 Shi'ite uprising. There is still no concrete evidence that he sought to complete exterminate the Marsh Arabs as an ethnic group.

Spot on, he didn't commit genocide, but it was on his mind, I'm pretty sure of that. He is a mass murderer like Stalin, Hitler and Milosevic.

by **Big Niall** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:30 pm

There was a memorial to genocide in Britain somewhere a few years ago. What started off as a noble cause got F*cked up. The turks objected to their "treatment" of Armenians being there and as they were an ally in the so called war on terror, the armenians were omitted.

typical double standard BS.

Hussein was terrible he was not intent on mass murder on the scale of Hitler, Stalin etc and probably killed less than Britains PM (churchill at the time, I think) did Indians or the Belgians did in Congo (remember poor little Belgium who some countries went to WW1 to save , well it killed around 1 million in the Congo).

AFrica is run by similar people and I don't remember the outcry to go to Rwanda and other such countries - but they had no oil and the people were black so no big deal, right? :angry:

Liverpool FC Forum

Saddam sentenced to death

Who is online