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.

 

SADDAM Sentenced to Death by Hanging!

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   
I'm just saying that you cannot reason with religious fanatisism... Their entire religion says that in the end, they will all dfie in a war against the infidels... Tell me what argument we, as the white invading infidels, could put forth that would change their minds.

I'm not trying to convince them to use peaceful means because it just postpones the inevitable(that they will die in holy war against us). So I reiterate that preemptive strike may be the only way to nip the problem in the bud...

Also I didn't say if they don't conform kill them... I said that these should be removed because of obvious reasons.

[edit on 6-11-2006 by MasterJedi]




posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   
You have voted Souljah for the Way Above Top Secret award.


Nice.... Souljah
! Since Saddam was tried (if you want to call a laughable, planted court system by Bush & Co a legal court
) by his "Not-Peers" in that joke of a court system they rigged up in Iraq and found guilty for his crimes against humanity.

When will Bush & Co be charged and bound over for court for their criminal actions against the citizens of Iraq and the citizens of the United States ????? What applies to one dictator- President, should also apply to ours too
!!!!



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by MasterJedi
I'm just saying that you cannot reason with religious fanatisism... Their entire religion says that in the end, they will all dfie in a war against the infidels... Tell me what argument we, as the white invading infidels, could put forth that would change their minds.

I'm not trying to convince them to use peaceful means because it just postpones the inevitable(that they will die in holy war against us). So I reiterate that preemptive strike may be the only way to nip the problem in the bud...



In the Qur'an, the principle of fighting is purely self-defensive. According to all available Traditions, the earliest verses revealed with regards to fighting are these:

"Permission [to fight] is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged and, verily, God has indeed the power to succour them; those who have been driven from their homelands against all right for no other reason than their saying, 'Our sustainer is God!'" (22:39-40).

Along with this verse is 2:190, which says:

"And fight in God's cause against those who wage war against you..."

Thus, it is quite clear that fighting is to be done in self-defense. Now, anyone can commit acts of terror and aggression and say, "it's in self-defense." In fact, that is precisely what Al Qaeda is doing: they claim by killing 3,000 people in New York City and Washington, D.C., they are "defending" the Muslim nation against "Zionist and Crusader" aggression against the Muslims. What sheer rubbish.

The Qur'an clearly states, in the remainder of 2:190 it says:

"...but do not commit aggression, for verily, God does not love aggressors."

"Committing aggression" includes killing innocent civilians in Tel Aviv, Beslan, New York, Baghdad, or wherever. Furthermore, when the enemy ceases its hostility, fighting must cease:

"...but if they desist, then all hostility shall cease, save against those who [willfully] do wrong" (2:193).

Another verse repeats this insistence that hostility must cease when the enemy stops its aggression against you:

"But if they [the enemy] incline to peace, incline thou to it as well, and place thy trust in God: verily, He alone is all-hearing, all-knowing! And should they seek but to deceive thee [by their show of peace] - behold, God is enough for thee! He it is who has strengthened thee with His succour, and by giving thee believing followers" (8:61-62).

www.altmuslim.com...


Here is one way we can reason with fanatics, although I would argue any reasoning must be done within the Muslim community as not to seem like we are invading their religion. I see how it seems we are pandering to their sensitivities, however not so long ago people were severley punished for blaspheming against the christian god, it takes time to change.

If we follow your approach, which would be killing all religious fanatics, we would create many more terrorists. A preemptive strike would start a holy war, otherwise I don't see how the minority of Muslims who want to kill infidels will gather the resources to attack us any time soon.


Originally posted by MasterJedi
Also I didn't say if they don't conform kill them... I said that these should be removed because of obvious reasons.


I apologise for misrepresenting your argument, you said you'd kill them even if they did conform.

[edit on 6/11/06 by byhiniur]



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   
In Iraq, a large part of the population lives in fear that somehow saddam could come back to power, and that anyone who had worked with the Coalition would be slaughtered. This keeps the country from being able to move forward on reconstruction, etc.

And apparently a small part of the population lives in hope that saddam will come back and make it all the way it was before.

Executing saddam effectively deals with both the fears of many and the hopes of a few, while a prison term for saddam solves nothing - except some westerners get to 'feel good' because saddam didn't die because of them or the actions of their countries.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Ok... thats what I said...kill em all...


Although if you look back you'll see that I was refering to someone who would strap a bomb to themselves... Cause even if God himself showed up and told me to do that I'd have serious trouble with following his order and thats coming straight from his lips... much less a leader in a Mosque somewhere...

But misconstrue as you will...



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Sarcasm, the best way to make a point.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   
i really wanted to comment on another persons thread, but,
i was gated-corraled-chuted to submit a post here, so be it.

i was thinking about it some...
Saddam getting a conviction & a hanging-till-dead death sentence isn't right

i'm to understand that for +25 years, and all the rumored actrocities he did
as an absolute ruler/dictator...the world & world history is going to do away
with the man because of how he reacted to an Assassination attempt on him??

i understand that the scope of Saddams' revenge for the plot & plotters of assassination attempt- -was to kill them and any kin, relatives, friends, who showed support for the assassination plot & plotters...the final count was 143 dead.

its my opinion that each actrocity or mass murder spree should be tried, and a public record made/ evidence shown, for the whole world body to witness & reflect upon. At least not less than the Holocaust annals being held up as an example of evil.

With Saddam getting hung to death on an old massacre event of only 143 people,
that will leave scads of other politically expedient murders he & his revolutionary guard carried out to never be addressed or acknowledged or evidenced into lawful historical records.
humanities loss i think...as many, many things that Saddam committed will never be addressed...like Saddams purging of the Shias after the west encouraged them to rebel against the Baath party & Saddam...but the Shias were left stranded and helpless by the west
as the west refused any support or arms or underground resistance-in-exile to aid the revolution they encouraged

...a thousand-million questions about hate and death and war...will follow Saddam (or one of his doubles) to the grave
now...thats, a tragedy compounded !!



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by BitRaiser
Brilliant... just friggen brilliant.
Saddam is about to become a martyr.


agreed.


Ousted Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has been sentenced to death by hanging after being found guilty of crimes against humanity in ordering the deaths of 148 Shiite villagers.


and how many of the people who externally dictated policies in that area (haliburton and friends) are going to be hung for killing hundreds of thousands more?

i do remember a time in the 80s when america was turning iran against iraq and sharing technologies and weaponry with both of them so they would be more efficient at killing eachother. foreign policies from outside influences did pressure Saddam into reacting the only way he new how to. perhaps if Donald Rumsfeld had shared some truth with Saddam when they were shaking hands and exchanging jokes nearly 25 years ago, we wouldn't be hanging this man.

is saddam a perfect man?

about as perfect as president bush who ordered actions that killed alot more than 148 shiite villagers. i believe the count is above 2,500 americans killed in iraq, right?



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   
all i'm trying to say is that the thousands of americans died because of weapons of mass destruction that were not found. now the justification for the usa killing hundreds of thousands of iraqis and thousands of americans is that saddam killed people???



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   


SADDAM Sentenced to Death by Hanging!


All I can say is, hang in there Saddham. You can swing it!

I hate it when bad things happen to good people!



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   
You have voted Souljah for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.


Thank-you Souljah.

I just don't get it how some of these people think we have some 'right' to sentence someone to death,... WHO DID NOTHING TO US.

Saddam didn't attck us, WE ATTACKED HIM...OVER LIES.

The excuses of 9/11 and/or WMD were lies. What we have done, we had no right to do. And all of the cooked up excuses that were used after that were done in a pathetic attempt to make it look justified. But it doesn't work because you can not justify the unjustifyable.

Even the excuses of giving them democracy or saving them from a brutal dictator don't work. You can't install democracy at the point of a weapon. And the amount of brutality those poor people have endured because of bush's oil war far outstrips anything Saddam ever did to them.

Our armed forces are only meant to protect THIS COUNTRY, and Saddam was no threat to us. When we went over there for any reason other than a direct threat we lost all credibility or claims of morality.

It was wrong then, it's still wrong now...and nothing we can say or do will be able to make it right.

For those of you who believe it's o.k. to force regime change on a sovereign country because we don't agree with their politics/government...consider this...

The biggest part of the rest of the world certainly doesn't agree with our politics/government, so if in the future they feel that this country needs to have a forced regime change, will you still think it's o.k.?

No? I didn't think so.

And if they use lies to try to justify it will you consider that it gives them some kind of right to carry it through?



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Good postings.

Glad to see ATS characters with some morality. As stated, if there was doubt before (and healthy doubt) there is none now. Saddam is a victim, and our little scapegoat. Manipulated media helps tons.

The real Saddam is someone no-one in government wants us to know. Someone who wasn't born into power, someone who founded the first democracy in Iraq, someone who never built palaces after the 80s, someone who was tough on fundamentalist muslims, and easy going on women, moderates, and even homosexuals.

Yeah, those 133 "villagers" that he ordered to be suppressed were plotting to kill his own people. That's right, warlords, felons, the very fundamentalists that are causing us trouble now.

Never again will an iraqi woman walk around in Baghdad with the latest western clothing, jewelry, and a big paycheck in her pocket.

Never again will they have first-world class healthcare system.

Never again will the US allow any "dictator" to demand FAIR money for his oil - to rebuild his own country and people.

Greed has killed Saddam Hussein. And that same greed, is leeching off the American people.



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   
SteveR -

Never again will people be put in plastic shredders
Never again will people be buried alive
Never again will the infamous rape rooms be used

Iraq was a democracy before Saddam....not during his rein.......now Iraq has the chance to be a democracy once again.



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
SteveR -
Never again will people be put in plastic shredders
Never again will people be buried alive
Never again will the infamous rape rooms be used
Iraq was a democracy before Saddam....not during his rein.......now Iraq has the chance to be a democracy once again.


And he was not charged on these allegations why?



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR

And he was not charged on these allegations why?


because he was charged with specimen offences - this is a very common prosecution tactic where a defendant faces multiple charges of a similar maginitude

if he is charged with every offence he was ever accused of the case complexity explodes . in a capital case - what is the point of securing multiple convictions , all warranting the death penalty ? you can only execute the same person once .

the principle is very simple , logical and common . the real question should be why are you unaware , or pretending to be unaware of it ?



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 07:36 PM
link   
[edit on 7/11/06 by SteveR]



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
because he was charged with specimen offences - this is a very common prosecution tactic where a defendant faces multiple charges of a similar maginitude


My question was rhetorical. The correct answer is as follows. He is being directly charged, for example, for the death of random Shiites in an 1982 incident. A small twisted case like this is the easiest way to execute Saddam, and "acheive" certain people's "milestones." The evidence for the major crimes that the media has instilled in you, would require a long time to compile and when shown in full international context would hardly match that which was reported.

The Vatican said it right - this trial and it's verdict is a crime. I suppose the Vatican's statement is not on FOX either, can't compromise the good christian neocons now can we?



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 08:07 PM
link   
OMG, Souljah, your so-called "flashbacks" have no merit or worth.
They amount to being:


Originally posted by Souljah
US helped as Saddam plotted chemical attacks, report says

Irrelevant




Rumsfeld 'offered help to Saddam'

Irrelevant




Saddam Could Call CIA in His Defence

Irrelevant




Saddam Silenced For Fingering US In Iraq Bombings

Irrelevant




Israeli and US foreign policy documents

Irrelevant



How the CIA found and groomed Saddam

Irrelevant

Why are the above "flashbacks" irrelevant?
No one made him pull the 'trigger' but himself, hence his being held accountable according to Western or Islamic Law, Souljah.







So - will we ever see those Masters of Puppets on Trial?

Why should he you apologetic terrorist sympathizer?
See above: No one made Saddam pull the 'trigger', no matter who gave him the 'gun'.




Will we ever see them in the Court?

Your a broken record. Re-read your own question quoted above. :shk:




Why was Saddam judged in Baghdad and NOT in International Criminal Court in Hague - like Slobodan Milosevic was?

Saddam was judged in Baghdad because the intern Iraqi government at the time stipulated that Saddam be tried by Western-styled law and not the International "The Hague takes forever to determine a sentence to the point that the one being tried will die in prison before recieving any type determination like Milosevic" Law.




Is it a FAIR Trial?

According to some, especially those survivors of his brutalities, it certainly is a "fair" trial.
Furthermore, he recieved the very same "fair" trial he bestowed/gave to those thousands upon thousands that his own state courts gave to his own people...before they were carried off and maimed, butchered, raped, murdered, and killed. Was that "FAIR," you Saddam apologist?

Imagine if he was tried under Islamic Law.
How much more would you be wailing and gnashing your teeth, Souljah?
ISLAMIC LAW ON SADDAM




Well if it is a Fair Trial - how come THREE of his Lawyers were Assassianted - and nobody has a problem with that?

Nope. Tissue?
Want a new trial? Try under Islamic Law?

WANT A NEW TRIAL? WHY NOT TRY ISLAMIC LAW, SADDAM




And during the Trial his original judge was REPLACED?

And? Another tissue?



Fair Trial ey?

You bet and about as "FAIR" as it should get...for him.




If you belive in Santa!

Islamic Law does not even acknowledge, recognize, or mention such an entity. Hello?
Thus, a belief in such an entity is meaningless and irrelevant.

[edit on 7-11-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Islamic Law stipulates an "eye for an eye," and he is getting/receiving due justice, the ole' Islamic Law way.


You need to be more informed.



To the consternation of Islamic conservatives, his government gave women added freedoms and offered them high-level government and industry jobs. Saddam also created a Western-style legal system, making Iraq the only country in the Persian Gulf region not ruled according to traditional Islamic law (Sharia). Saddam abolished the Sharia law courts, except for personal injury claims"


en.wikipedia.org...

He ensured a fair western legal system for his citizens, yet the Muslim Fundamentalists (who Seekerof supports) are trying him under a backward Islamic law.

Marvellous.



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Edits were made.
I "informed" myself, thank you very much.

You must be a Saddam apologist, as well?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join