It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Blesphamy? Saddam 'punched by court clerks'

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Saddam Hussein was attacked by two court clerks while undergoing questioning for his trial, Iraqi television has reported.

The clerks were reported to have punched him several times after he allegedly insulted two Shia saints.

****************************

"Saddam insulted Imam Hussein and his brother Imam Abbas provoking two of the court's clerks," al-Iraqiya said.

"They attacked the tyrant and punched him several times," the station said.


Full Story on BBC



In the court?
Before the eyes of USA, under its nose?

Whatever Saddam did, court will hear and decide.......... USA's apparent stance.

Is this something different from Khomeni's Fatwa against Rushdi?

Blesphamy.......? Everything is same even in an Iraq after-Saddam and under USA .




posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Here are a few more quotes from the story that you linked to. Thought I would add these.



"Saddam insulted Imam Hussein and his brother Imam Abbas provoking two of the court's clerks," al-Iraqiya said.

"They attacked the tyrant and punched him several times," the station said.


The former Iraqi leader was being interrogated over the crushing of the Shia rebellion in southern Iraq, which followed the first Gulf War.

Tens of thousands of Shias were killed, and the shrines of the half-brothers Imam Hussein and Imam Abbasin the Shia holy city of Karbala were damaged by Saddam Hussein's forces.


See, this TYRANT did more than just throw a couple of punches.

And it was IRAQI clerks that did this, not the USA.

Thanks.

- One Man Short

[edit on 17-11-2005 by One Man Short of Manhood]



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 11:54 AM
link   
'Tens of thousands of Shias were killed, and the shrines of the half-brothers Imam Hussein and Imam Abbasin the Shia holy city of Karbala were damaged by Saddam Hussein's forces.'

And on top of this he throws insults. Okay, correct me if I am wrong here,
if you were a Shia knowing this guy's history, wouldn't you like to ring his bell too? If all he got is a slight beating, then I would consider him lucky. Where I come from, he would be fish food! Pedro my macaw, thinks perhaps it is the USA's presence that is keeping Saddam alive, I tend to agree. After all Pedro is not just any bird brain.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by WHOFLUNGGUM
Pedro my macaw, thinks perhaps it is the USA's presence that is keeping Saddam alive, I tend to agree. After all Pedro is not just any bird brain.



Exactly what I wanted to convey.
Pedro understands it all, but takes a lot of time to react!
I add:
And damn all those, from any creed, who insult others saints or spiritual/religious leaders.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Indeed nothing has change, only gotten worse, There is still a despotic, torturing murdering regime in place only now there is an equally torturing and murdering occupation to defend it.

as for this story, can any of you kidies spell Show trial?



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Well Syrian Sis, at least he is getting a trial, show or otherwise. And talk about an occupying force what about Syria. As Ricky Recardo would say,
"Lucy you got sum splaining to do!"


www.mankindminusone.com...



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 03:28 PM
link   
If this was 'like under saddam', then after rapping his daughters infront of him they'd set him on fire. You know, like he did to Sadr the Elder and his sister?



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Regardless of how much Saddam deserved a good smack and regardless of how much anyone feels it's justified to do so makes no difference and shouldn't be allowed to happen. The reason I say that has nothing to do with sympathy for Saddam either. The reason such actions cannot be allowed is because it adds to the validity of Saddam's claims that the whole Trial is a sham and just an illegal take-over of his authority.

Remember the OJ trial and the whole Mark Fuhrman issue and the use of the "N-Word"??? All the world needs is Saddam getting off because of a mis-trial or something stupid like that. (Although I admit it would probably take quite a bit to actually result in this being a mis-trial.)



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   
What I hate most about the Saddam trial is the way everything we see is so heavily censored. Clearly it would be embarrassing for us to know how many weapons we supplied him with, and which western companies (including French, not just British and American) helped him build his WMD programme when there was one.
There are perhaps other embarrassing issues which are back in the public’s conscience.
Among those may be that Kuwait was part of Iraq for thousands of years prior to the British colonel occupation which led to Kuwait’s creation in the early 1920’s. Because what that means is that Saddam didn’t so much try to invade Kuwait but re-unite it after the country flooded the market with cheap oil at a time his country had huge international dept from Iran war (America sold weapons to both sides in this war). How interesting Saddam used war to stabilise his political situation? It’s perhaps the biggest reason he didn't withdraw.

We could even learn that Saddam did try to negotiate with the Kurds, and that it was because the Iranians where arming and bribing their tribal leaders that negotiations failed and he oppressed them, particularly when some tribes where effectively fighting for the Iranians during the Iran Iraq war. Could we be reminded that Iran Iraq war only started because Saddam had given a large section of the river Tigris on the condition that they would not arm and bribe the Kurds, and that he invaded Iran because they (apparently) failed keep their side of the bargain.
Because what that means is Saddam was not so much into “ethnic cleansing” but rather fighting an armed tribal group who were working for his neighbouring enemy.

What’s interesting about the 1988 gassing (the one where all “about 40” witnesses failed to turn up) is that a cyanide agent was used, but that Iraq (unlike Iran) did not posses cyanide agents instead their chemical weapons where in the mustard gas category. Could it be that Saddam’s claims where true, that Iran probably did it by mistake because his forces where in the area?

Nobody denies Saddam did kill people, but I think its right to balance that against the nature of keeping power in Iraq. This trial won’t do that, in fact for a trial it has delivered very few embarrassing facts (at least to the public or media anyway).

Remember that before U.N sanctions against WMD’s Saddam had unilaterally disarmed his country of (in accordance with his legal obligations) Iraq actually had over 92% literacy, and living standards approaching of those in the west. Though Saddam "lived in palaces when his people lived in poverty" not a single palace was built after U.N sanctions. In fact one half way through construction at the start of the Gulf War was still uncompleted afterwards.
And what’s most interesting is that practically all (if not all) the “mass graves” found so far have had bodies in them that date to the time when (you guessed it) America and the West were supporting him. Could it be that amongst all those looted and burnt documents the likes of Rumsfeld (someone in both Bush administrations) where telling Saddam he could get way with it? Remember he was an ally we were selling weapons to.

In my opinion how anybody can compare the standards of Saddam’s trial to those of Nuremburg is beyond me. So far we have seen 2 of his lawyer’s assonated (and I’m not sure about other members of his legal team). Saddam did not kill 6 million people but those who did received a better standard of justice well over 50 years ago.
I also believe that not one of defendants at Nuremburg was assaulted, and though the conditions did not really exist we did try them in front of ethnic groups who as the punches show have no interest in serving justice, merely revenge.

Perhaps Saddam’s "trial" is rather like the issue as a whole as far what we are told will happen and what happens are two very different things.
Isn't it an insult to our own standing that we cannot conduct a fair trial of a dictator?
And why does it have to be in Iraq when Saddam is in U.S custody?
Would it not be better for justice and the safety of both defence and prosecution if Saddam was tried in any country but Iraq?

Whatever people say about Saddam it is true he kept the country together, and i believe that at the rate things are going it will not be long after our withdraw (whenever that may be) that Iraq will be ruled by another dictator for the simple reason it is a heavily armed country of a many internal feuds (both current and ancient).
The White house seems to hate the U.N so try him in Texas? Maybe somebody should reserve that place for Bush?

P.S Anybody who wants sources for what I said can mail me or look at my “Iraq Dossier of Facts” I posted on this site ages ago. Yours Alex


[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join