Saddam Confesses

Of course Saddam has not confessed to actually killing people, but he has apparently confessed to giving the execution orders for various “operations”.

Story
here

BAGHDAD - Ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein "confessed" to releasing orders for executions and a campaign against Kurds in which thousands of people are said to have been killed, President Jalal Talabani said.

"I met the investigator who questioned Saddam," he told Iraqiya state television in an interview late on Tuesday. "He said he had extracted important confessions from Saddam Hussein and he signed them."

Asked about the confessions, Talabani replied: "About the crimes he committed: he confessed to al-Anfal and the executions," adding that Saddam had said: "The orders were released by me."

If Saddam lives through his trial, I feel he will most certainly be convicted and pay the appropriate penalties given to him by the new Iraqi government (death). Confessions such as these are all that they will need. In a way, I believe Saddam must be a bit mad. He clearly thinks that he will be vindicated in some way and confessions like this wont hurt him.

Everyone knows Saddam had it in him to murder and commit crimes. So, where are we different? We go to other countries and do it.

What is the difference? Are we better?

Originally posted by dgtempe

What is the difference? Are we better?

Yes.


Saddam killed his own, and its his own that will try and convict him for it.

Maybe justice will start with him and then make its way around the world and come to us.

He may have confessed, the problem is, in his eyes it was legal.

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
He may have confessed, the problem is, in his eyes it was legal.

Thats my contention too Cobra. And thats why I think he is a little crazy. I think that he feels that nothing is going to happen to him. Maybe that he will be freed and regain power. But each thing he says digs his hole deeper.

But, all thats important is that the new government does not feel his actions were legal.

Originally posted by dgtempe
Maybe justice will start with him and then make its way around the world and come to us.

yeah, ok everyone yells about how bad we are but we dont use nerve gas on villagers.

Originally posted by Rikimaru

Originally posted by dgtempe
Maybe justice will start with him and then make its way around the world and come to us.

yeah, ok

everyone yells about how bad we are but we dont use nerve gas on villagers.

Nope, just napalm (in the not too distant past)...

I think a lot of people forget that some of the worst chemical attacks actually occured during the Iraq-Iran war, and when halabjah was attacked it was in Iranian hands. There's still no excuse for this kind of thing and I abhor all attacks against civilians, but I do think there's a case of double standards here. I don't see people associated with the attacks against civilians in Vietnam getting the death penalty. I don't even see the US paying to help clearup the vast amounts of Agent Orange that are still killing and maiming people today.

Really, I think executing Saddam will do nothing more than cement his position as some kind of Martyr to misguided extremists who see the invasion as a crusade. A fair trial in an international court with life imprisonment as the penalty would make more sense...

Some of these statements make me sick. It's very obvious that the people in our world have lost their ways. The murder of a human being can never be justified. Is anyone going to try and tell me that murdering someone from another nation is alright? Just because we live in different nations doesn't mean it should seperate us. We are all people of the earth and through unity is the only way we are going to survive. I don't think the us govenrment is any different then sadam, if anything we are worse, they are way up their on the fascist meter. What saddens me is that so many of the US citizens will have to pay the price for the govs negligence, it's only a matter of time before what the USA has dished comes right back to them. The murder of innocence never goes unoticed.

First,

Ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein "confessed" to releasing orders for executions and a campaign against Kurds in which thousands of people are said to have been killed, President Jalal Talabani said.

Why is the Word Confessed written in quotation marks?

Hmmm...

Second,

But Talabani did not say whether Saddam had actually admitted to committing any crimes, or merely acknowledged that he was head of state and commander in chief of the army at the time of various military operations.

Why did he not say that? Why didn't Talabani announce that Saddam has admitted to these Crimes?

Hmmm....

Third,

Al-Anfal was a campaign against the Kurds between 1986 and 1989 in which over 100,000 people are said to have been killed and many villages destroyed. Talabani is a Kurd. "Saddam deserves a death sentence 20 times a day because he tried to assassinate me 20 times," he said, recalling his days as a Kurdish rebel leader fighting the Baghdad authorities.

Revenge is a Dish Served Cold....

Originally posted by dgtempe
, ok

everyone yells about how bad we are but we dont use nerve gas on villagers.

You really think so? afraid not!

The US has used Napalm weapons in Iraq in 2003

www.counterpunch.org...

Despite persistent rumours of injuries among Iraqis consistent with the use of incendiary weapons such as napalm, Adam Ingram, the Defence minister, assured Labour MPs in January that US forces had not used a new generation of incendiary weapons, codenamed MK77, in Iraq.

But Mr Ingram admitted to the Labour MP Harry Cohen in a private letter obtained by The London Independent that he had inadvertently misled Parliament because he had been misinformed by the US. "The US confirmed to my officials that they had not used MK77s in Iraq at any time and this was the basis of my response to you," he told Mr Cohen. "I regret to say that I have since discovered that this is not the case and must now correct the position."

Mr Ingram said 30 MK77 firebombs were used by the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in the invasion of Iraq between 31 March and 2 April 2003. They were used against military targets "away from civilian targets", he said. This avoids breaching the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), which permits their use only against military targets.

Originally posted by Rikimaru

Originally posted by dgtempe
Maybe justice will start with him and then make its way around the world and come to us.

yeah, ok

everyone yells about how bad we are but we dont use nerve gas on villagers.

No......you have used Atomic weapons on civilians though haven't you? Funny the irony no?

Originally posted by Passer By

No......you have used Atomic weapons on civilians though haven't you? Funny the irony no?

I don’t want to get off topic, but you brought it up: The US's use of atomic weapons in WWII is widely considered an action that SAVED 100's of thousands, possibly millions of lives by avoiding a prolonged conventional war. And a lesser talked about part of history was that Japan was not very far from their own atomic weapons which they certainly would have used in the war that they initiated.

I mention this because you mention these atomic bomb uses as something that supports some theory you have, but in reality you couldn’t have a more off perception of their use and context.

Arnold,

You should really read your own quote before you post it. Notice the line right after the part you put in bold, that states we did NOT use these weapons against civs, just military targets?

I am sorry, but all of you comparing the US to Saddams rule and trying to portray us as murderers are pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. The US takes military action, and in the process unfortunatly people that shouldn't die do, but we do not go about attempting genocide as Saddam has.

Yes from our perspective the use of nukes on civilians was justified.
I very much doubt those civiliamns felt the same way.

The same way he no doubt considers his use of nerve agents as justified.

Originally posted by skippytjc

Originally posted by Passer By

No......you have used Atomic weapons on civilians though haven't you? Funny the irony no?

I don’t want to get off topic, but you brought it up: The US's use of atomic weapons in WWII is widely considered an action that SAVED 100's of thousands, possibly millions of lives by avoiding a prolonged conventional war. And a lesser talked about part of history was that Japan was not very far from their own atomic weapons which they certainly would have used in the war that they initiated.

I mention this because you mention these atomic bomb uses as something that supports some theory you have, but in reality you couldn’t have a more off perception of their use and context.

The reality is that once again the neocon is out of his league. I was refering to the post WWII testing they were doing in the desert, within range of American civilians - but hey, why worry about if your perception is right eh? Just jump to a conclusion and try defend it huh?

So you see, I was on topic, you misunderstood me and it is once again the downfall of those that are too afraid to let go of dogma.

Unfortunately the simple truth is, IMO, that all governments have done things to their civilians and the difference between Saddam and Bush, and Martin, and Kim and Blair are differences of degree and not of kind. This notion that "we" are better than "them" is absurd and what leads into this level of misunderstanding and ignorance.

As for Saddam Confessed? Did he, or are you taking the word of someone who is a puppett for the government of the US which obvious has a slant against Saddam? Not saying that he wasn't a bad man - just that if being a bad man was all it took to kill someone we could start with EVERY politician, all lawyers, most professionals, all bankers...getting my point?

Originally posted by boogyman
Yes from our perspective the use of nukes on civilians was justified.
I very much doubt those civiliamns felt the same way.

The same way he no doubt considers his use of nerve agents as justified.

Those Nukes saves countless Japanese lives as well. If the allies were forced to use conventional weapons on Japan, the civilian tolls would have been multiplied drastically. Im not going to argue this, its been studied and analyzed thousands times by people a great deal smarter than us. The bottom line is Passers analogy is terrible.

Originally posted by Passer By
The reality is that once again the neocon is out of his league. I was refering to the post WWII testing they were doing in the desert, within range of American civilians - but hey, why worry about if your perception is right eh? Just jump to a conclusion and try defend it huh?

Neocon, LOL, thats cute.

And maybe you should mention your context? You make a ONE LINE reference to something in an attempt at an analogy and expect everybody to get some sort of pseudo complex reference you are trying to make? And then have the nuggets to call people names because they didn’t get your reference as you cannot communicate yourself properly? LOL. Peanut gallery...

Merely calling a spade a spade my friend. Neo-con being a neo conservitive. Are you saying you are not one? A conservative? A neo conservative? Since when is name calling being a correct label? If I call a red rose red, is that name calling? Didn't think so.......

As for putting a refernce point, I figured that because one was "one topic" and the way you veiwed it was obviously "off topic", as per your words, then wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that what was being referenced was something related to the discussion and not some off topic nonesense? But who has time for context when you busy trying to make facts fit an ideology....

So, accepting what I and others have pointed out to you, that the US has indeed hurt and killed their own citizens.. Tell me, how is Saddam any different?

Does anyone actually buy the fact that this is even the "real" Saddam? I mean, all we used to ehar about was all the "doubles" this guy had---now that he's been "captured," you never hear about them! Evidently they tested this guy's DNA to prove it was really him, but they could just say that and the press would report it without even verifying the DNA tests---and where did they get original Saddam DNA to verify it against?
I'm not saying this guy is definitely a double, but he sure could be, and if he were, he would probably say whatever they wanted. Also, even if it the "real" Saddam, who's to say this confession is genuine? I'm not cliaming to know the absolute truth of the situation, that would be ridiculous, none of us do, but these are important questions that people should consider.
---Ryan