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.

 

His Excellency Saddam Hussein, Urges Iraqis Not to Hate the People of the West

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Iraq was given its name 85 years ago (give or take), but people have been living there for thousands upon thousands of years.

Iraq wasn't born overnight, the region and the people who live there have a much longer history than any Western nation - remember that.

Anyway, I don't think Hussein ought to have been thrown to the very people who've been trying to kill him (right or wrong) for the past 20 some odd years, it's a bit like putting a cobra on trial with 12 mongooses in the jury box. There had to have been a better way.

His rule wasn't right, but it did keep the sectarian violence subdued, and it granted Iraqis many comforts and liberties they no longer have, thanks to the invasion and the resulting insurgency.

Anyway, he's no better or worse than any number of other criminal leaders who subjugate great numbers of people to ensure progress and provide comfort to a few. We put our dirty history on the money in my country - the guy on the twenty spot is, IMO, one of the worst human beings to ever set foot on this soil.

We venerate our mass murderers and our thieves and our torturers - and so does everyone else. Because that's the price of progress and international/intranational competition, or at least it has been for a long, long time.

Maybe we can change all that...

But not until we start being honest with ourselves and each other, about our history and our undeniable hypocrisy when it comes to our own sins that we can see so clearly in others, but not in ourselves.

I don't see Bush or his handlers foaming at the mouth to tackle Indonesia and hang its leaders - maybe it has something to do with the fact that they are open to foreign investment, even when its morally repugnant and leads to catastrophic environmental fallout? I don't see our tanks rolling into Saudi Arabia to free the slaves and stop the torture/murder/repression. The list of brutal, repressive regimes supported by my country is long...

I'm not saying Hussein was a good guy, quite the opposite. Hussein was a bad, bad guy, but he has plenty of company in that category.

An important distinction between the bad guys we defend and the bad guys we attack - the former will allow politically-connected companies to exploit the resources of their nation to the detriment of the native people and for the benefit of muckity-mucks on both sides, and the latter will not.

Should Hussein pay for his crimes? Absolutely. All criminals should. It's up to us NOT to turn a blind eye to the criminals who line the pockets of our elected officials and the corporations that fund their careers.




posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

I like you point, the one about the funny remark.

So tell me what will you call Iraq right now after liberation the garden of eden.

The war started in 2003, ended shortly after with the capture of Saddam Hussein, a new government was installed, and an effort to suppress the following insurgency was initiated and still drags on.

At least 2 years, 4 years at the most have we been fighting this insurgency. The American Revolutionary War lasted what? Almost a decade right? I'm pretty sure the British saw the Colonists as insurgents as well. We need to wait a generation or two to actually see a major difference. It is FAR TO EARLY to know the winner to this conflict; only time will tell.

I am not going to justify the actions of the insurgency as I do not support the fundamentalist beliefs and their claim to violence, but I do not think that hanging Saddam is going to bring anymore peace to the Middle East than it will chaos. He should serve the rest of his life in a prison, capital punishment will not help the situation. He's better in prison than dead.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Should Hussein pay for his crimes? Absolutely. All criminals should. It's up to us NOT to turn a blind eye to the criminals who line the pockets of our elected officials and the corporations that fund their careers.

You're aboslutely right, it is our responsibility not to turn away. We know it is happening and it still happens and nothing is done about it.

But I believe that the true evils in the world aren't those who commit the attrocities, but the people who allow the attrocities to happen. We are about as much to blame as anyone else.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by marcopolo
What good was killing another man ever going to do?


Usually nothing. That is why I am usually against the death penalty. However, there are times that you must kill in self defense. This is one of those times.

Unless he dies, his followers will use him as an excuse to take hostages and to threaten to blow up things to gain his release. He must die in order for that not to be a leverage.

The Iraqi people want him dead. They suffered under him and now they want him dead for their own safety. Their courts have freely spoken. It's their land and now they can do with it as they please. It pleases them to end the Saddam nightmare and to try to heal from him. They believe that he must be dead for this to start.

spelling edit

[edit on 12/29/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
Let me give you a sitaution that is more closely annalogous to reality. An intruder enters your home, steals your stuff, shoots your brother, rapes your sister, and beats you up, then while continuing to occupy your home and treating it as if it were his, he procceeds to give you medical attention. Would it then be honourable of you to accept that "help" from him?

Would you rather your sister die than survive?
Would you rather your brother die so you can uphold some sense of pride? Hell no, It more honourable to selfles than selfish.


NO, ofcource NOT! Iraqies have more of sense of honour than you, and they will continue to hate you and continue to fight you.

Fight me?
I have never fired a shot in anger, never raised a fist in anger and never will. They fight my country, theres a diffrence. Personally I would rather we didnt go in but it wasnt up to me was it? Oh and just to add, dont try and paint this whole "Innocent" crusader for your iraqi resistance friends, they have commited crimes just as brutal as any UK force in iraq.


What you have already done is UNFIXABLE, and you continue to intrude, so if you want to do something right for a change you should just BACK OFF.

I dont see it as unfixable, merely a difficult goal to reach.


Exactly. So maybe you are begining to understand. You are not fixing anything by contiuing to do something that is fundementally wrong, and you are shooting at people who have every right to be angry, and every right to fight you.

Do they have a right to shoot innocent people? Do they have a right to use fear, terror and force to control the iraqi people? No....



Heh, you've occupied Iraq before, and they have beaten you before, or have you forgotten?

Lol, we gave them independance actually, then reoccupied after a number of military coups but yet again you have failed to actually look up your history.


In this situation it is your side which is the imperialist, you are the invaders like the nazi's and the romans.

Lol unlike the romans and the nazis we wont claim it as a colony, which I suppose we should have done. After all its our god given right to do so.


The Iraqi resistance has a weapon that is more powerful than you or the nazi's or the napolean, they have the determination of the righteous, who can take on a super power with only a rock and fight till the last drop of blood. The power is in that.

Anyone can take on a super power, we done it with the romans and nazis.
Knowledge is power, the iraqi resistance has the power to strike fear, terror and rule with an iron fist because THATS what they grew up with and THATS what they do best.

Fear, coercion , use of force, ruthless attacks and the ability to dissapear are the basic elemnts of a guerilla force. The iraqi resistance uses the ignorance of the local people to inspire fear, it uses coercoin to keep its ranks clean from informers and people who would speak out against the party line, it uses ruthless attacks because THATS what gets the worlds attention. No one knew OSB before 9/11, no one knew about bombers in the UK until 7/7 and no one knew about terrorist cells until the 1970s when they started blowing up airliners.



Wasn't it a belt? And i read it was his men not him specifically. I can't side with such dishonourable acts but i'll bet you they had a very legitimate reason to be so angry, and it doesn't change the fact that william was a hero who fought for his land.

Actually his skin was tanned and turned into a belt yes, but the legend has been changed over the years. Yes they had a legitimate reason to be angry but it doesnt exscuse what he did, he was a hero of scotland but he was also a murdering, pillaging warlord who slaughtered his enemies without remorse or mercy.



HAH!!!! you mean, when you attacked it?? What a twist on the glaringly obvious, you are really trying to squirm out of it aren't you?

Squirm out of it? If you want to talk about iraqs military capability then lets talk. At the begining of hostilities they had the 300,000 men, thats more than britains entire force including its reservists. They had over a thousand tanks (thats more than 3 times our number of tanks). Hell they had the MILAN for crying out loud, the exact same weapon we use! They had Mirages, SU 20's and 22's, they had Mig 21s,23a,25s and 29's and he J-7! They where by no means a "weak" country.




Let push it even more then, your side was so dishonourable and coward, that they completely disarmed the country using the UN even from the smallest missile, leaving it with no chance to defend itself a few weeks before they declared war.

Ha!Look at the above answer for this reply, oh just to clarify scuds and al hussien rockets do not leave it "Defenceless", we could have decimated it even with those weapons.



I don't see how your sarcasm makes sense since you did use slavery for 200 years, if not more.

Hence why I used sarcasm.....was pointing out that scotlands image is tarnished just like any other nation.


Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
I'm pretty sure the British saw the Colonists as insurgents as well.

Give us time shattered, we had the germans and french to deal with for a while but we will get round to you insurgents yet


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 11:07 AM
link   
The Latest

The latest news on the hanging - some are saying that it will be tomorrow because Saddams lawyers were called to pick up his personal things from the jail. Others say that the Iraqi cabinet is calling for it to be postponed for 'at least' a month or more.

Edited to add - Newsmax says the execution will be tomorrow -
Newsmax article - breaking news




[edit on 12/29/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
The war started in 2003, ended shortly after with the capture of Saddam Hussein, a new government was installed,


Sure enough a hasty government WAS installed so our administration could claim that democracy WAS brought to the newly liberated Iraq, but hey make sure that the Iraqi government is nicely tucked away in the green zone because even that early in after invasion and liberation the death rate of political figures was no very good.

I guess if you say it enough times you can believe it was for the good of the nation.

Democracy works, Democracy works, Iraq is democratic.



At least 2 years, 4 years at the most have we been fighting this insurgency. The American Revolutionary War lasted what?


Why people like to compare difficult conflicts that have nothing in common with the historical references they tried to compare them with.

I guess it keeps the actually realities goals of under false pretenses war look more attractive.

Wrong!!!!!!

Iraq will never be resolve with foreign influences and false illusions that are hiding the true nature of the private interest behind this war.

The Iraqis are not stupid and they know why their country is so important to the west.



I am not going to justify the actions of the insurgency as I do not support the fundamentalist beliefs and their claim to violence,


Nobody should I believe, not after the way that Iraq was taken by force and turned into the nightmare that is right now for the rightful citizens of that crumbling nation.



but I do not think that hanging Saddam is going to bring anymore peace to the Middle East than it will chaos.


No, it will not bring anymore peace but It will be more fuel to the retaliation against the ones that are seen as the guilty party.

Retribution is nothing but a sign of human nature.



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   
I keep seeing news flahes. I have seen 3 or possibly 4 in the last 24 hrs. Does anyone else think that they have alreay hanged him, and are just building up to the Saddam hanged?

I think this would be bad for Iraq because it could send them into civil war, if they are not already in civil war, and then it's just more lost lives all around for nothing.

He's in jail, why not keep him in jail? Or put him in jail in some other country? Heck if they really wanted to be mean, they could ship him off to guatanomo bay or one of their other prisons.

Anyways it's just a thought, all the media blitz just makes me think something is up, and maybe the deed has already been done, but who knows.



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harassment101
Does anyone else think it might alreay have happened


No. But when it does happen we won't know about it for a few hours.

Right now the news outlets are saying that permission has been asked to hang him on the holy day tomorrow. They (prosecutors) are saying that it is a 'gift to the Iraqi people for the holy day'. So I think it will happen, most likely tomorrow, and you won't know for a few hours.



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
So, you worship Saddam Hussein?

That's sweet.


Grady did you happen to notice the screen name of the individual to which you responded....Liberal. That explains all right there.



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
Kurds…
I know Saddam did wrong with the Kurds


The "Kurds" was an Iranian job. The US backed that until they made their U-turn. Not so long ago, a CIA whistleblower came out and verified that the original conclusion was correct.

One more wrong to cross off the list...



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by MooneyBravo

Grady did you happen to notice the screen name of the individual to which you responded....Liberal. That explains all right there.


I consider myself a LIBERAL while I do not fall blindly for party affiliations, are you going to hold it against me also?


BTW the news are still claiming that he will die tomorrow.



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 10:50 PM
link   
I am a little frustrated...

I have followed all of the links and performed plenty of googling on my own... I have yet to find a full text english translation of the November 5th Letter. I even started a thread HERE to help locate source data, but it was redirected back to this thread.

The closest thing I have are the BBC Saddam letter: Key excerpts.

I would really like to see full text, as well as an original scanned document if anyone has links. I am source material snob... please don't mind me. I find it odd that this is one of the first times that I could not locate source material for something quoted on BBC. I also am a bit taken by the BBC not posting their "key excerpts" until the 28th of December. The letter was "publically" posted on "a website" on the 24th (Wednesday).

Somehow the timing does not jive with our finding out that he was DEAD on the 30th at 4 AM... but the hanging actually happenend on the 27th (Saturday).


From the BBC:


In the message - also published on a website - he said the US and Iran were behind the violence and bloodshed in Iraq.


From MSNBC:


Saddam Hussein called on Iraqis not to hate the U.S.-led forces that invaded Iraq in 2003 in a farewell letter posted on a Web site Wednesday


Also published on a website? In a farewell letter posted on a Web site?

How vague is that? Where? What Web site? This is journalism? Something is being covered.

I put my gold on the fact that the "key excerpts" are most likely the only parts that did not find their way beneath the black marker before the orginal hit the copier. That or there is something bigger here.



Sri Oracle

[edit on 2-1-2007 by Sri Oracle]



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by stumason


As for "His Exellency" title, that is technically what you call a President in diplomatic circles. i wouldn't stretch so far as to call him that myself, but that is protocol if he were President. Bush will be called that himself in diplomatic engagements.

I dont think so mate, I mean when was the last time you heard bush, etc being called "exellency"? I believe its reserved for nobile blood.


Type "excellency definition" into google and you will receive this as the first result;

www.google.co.uk...:excellency&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

"# a title used to address dignitaries (such as ambassadors or governors); usually preceded by `Your' or `His' or `Her'; "Your Excellency"
# excellence: an outstanding feature; something in which something or someone excels; "a center of manufacturing excellence"; "the use of herbs is one of the excellencies of French cuisine"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

# His / Her Excellency is an honorific title given to certain high-ranking political officials. When written, the title is place before someone's name and title, for example "His Excellency, President Chirac." In spoken address a holder of this title is usually referred to as Your Excellency or simply Excellency.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excellency

# In the earlier days it was usual to address a governor or the president as “Your Excellency,” and refer to him as “His Excellency.” This custom is gradually losing ground.
www.people.virginia.edu/~rmf8a/gaskell/poldict.htm"


Liberal is fine in referring to Saddam as "excellency" and is doing nothing incorrect by doing so- i just thought i should point these accepted definitions out to you to further your knowledge on such titles
.



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 01:23 AM
link   
Yet again, honourific...what exactly makes him honourable? The rank? A rank doesnt make you honourable, soldiers dont salute the officer, they salute the rank.

I wouldnt see him as honourable or as a legal leader.



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Yet again, honourific...what exactly makes him honourable? The rank? A rank doesnt make you honourable, soldiers dont salute the officer, they salute the rank.

I wouldnt see him as honoured or as a legal leader.


If you are worthy of being honored/respected then many say you could be honourable. Saddam certainly wasn't a saint, but he did do many things that even i can respect him for (which deserve honor". I am not completely with or againt him though either way.
However, not to get into a long and philosophical debate about the history of honor and such, the prefix The Honourable or The Honorable (abbr. The Hon. or formerly The Hon'ble) is a title of quality attached to the names of certain classes of persons. "Excellency" is very similar in meaning to "Honorable" as far as titles go, you just need to earn a high enough rank and hold it to get such a title.
Although there are many Bush-haters now days (some/many may say even more so than saddam-haters), even Bush could be referred to as "excellency" in certain situations. "Excellency" is simply 'Liberals choice of title for Saddam in this thread, it points that he has a certain amount of respect for Saddam (which i see nothing wrong with in general- you can have both respect and dislike of someone at the same time).



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 02:01 AM
link   
His Six-Feet-Underness Saddam Hussein should kindly stop haunting us from beyond the grave!


Why are we still talking about this? The guy's certainly not an 'Excellency' anymore if he ever was!



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
His Six-Feet-Underness Saddam Hussein should kindly stop haunting us from beyond the grave!


Why are we still talking about this? The guy's certainly not an 'Excellency' anymore if he ever was!


As much as some people would like to have this whole matter done and dusted and out of the way, in reality his absense from the current state of affairs is just as important as when he was present- he is and will play a vital role in how things will turn out- the Americans have started a whole new chapter in the history or Iraq (but not nesarsarily for the better).
The Americans decided to make a matyr out of him in the eyes of many people- if they don't like that, then basically they shouldn't have excuted him at this point in history.
Saddams message of telling people not to hate the west is good, as if such a hatred was encouraged to fester towards every western person then we would all suffer in the long term from increased terrorist attacks from the hatred and anger. He knew there would be wide spread towards the west after his death (as there has been for a some time now), but he knew that would do his people and our people no good in the long term.
Whether you agree or not though, he certainly held the title of Excellancy for a large bulk of his life.



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp



As for "His Exellency" title, that is technically what you call a President in diplomatic circles. i wouldn't stretch so far as to call him that myself, but that is protocol if he were President. Bush will be called that himself in diplomatic engagements.

I dont think so mate, I mean when was the last time you heard bush, etc being called "exellency"? I believe its reserved for nobile blood.



Nope, it is true.

Within diplomatic circles, when referring to a foreign dignatory, they have certain titles you address them with dependant on their rank.

A President or Ambassador will be "His/Her Excellency". This title also extends to senior Nobility and is the original use in days gone by.

The Queen would obviously be HRH as would any other Royal.

Not sure what the Prime Minister would be..trying to find out..



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 03:59 AM
link   
I think we just request for the President to be called "Mr. President".

Not His Excellency or anything else.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join