lebanies

Wild Horses
ya you may find it weird,espesially with the media crab that they are stuffing our minds with about saddam,saddam is that and this,just remember that iraq is a independent country that was invaided from a foreigen one, and his mistake was that he defended his own,and now he is dead,did"nt the americans do the same when the invaided japan killed all the high officers,they were in thousands.....did"nt they do the same in vietnam,what about afghanistan they put 3000 men in 6 containers and left them for 3 days in the middle of the dessert till the were dead,a horible death,ya when the temprature reachs 45 degree.what about iraq,3000 iraqies are dying on a regular base in iraq monthly,did you know that?where was the media then telling about the crimes of the us "marines"and now they hanged saddam cause he killed 148 men in a village where he was about to be killed by them,did you know that 20 of his body gaurds were dead in that operation and this attempt happened in the middle of the war with iran,and it is well known that in war time revolt is punished by death.
now days,every single day passes more than 150 people die in iraq but...........who will accuse the usa troups with any murder eh?what brought the us troops into iraq for?for freedom,all the iraqis sees now is death.
well,at least saddam walked to the roope in high heels,defient,and not scared....a leader.
he was insulted at the time the rope was on his neck,but he stood still....a leader.
yes the same like george buch when in 9\11 ,he flew like a rabbit into a safe house with his dick shini thing,yes such a leader,i can"nt imagine what the iron leader g.buch would do if he was in saddam"s shoe ,yes i can imagine.
it is not about the US to judje on saddam,history will.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"well,at least saddam walked to the roope in high heels,defient,and not scared....a leader"
Those bastards really were determined to humiliate him weren't they?

"george buch when in 9\11 ,he flew like a rabbit into a safe house with his dick shini thing"
I have to say I'm pretty curious about this dick shini thing - what is it?
 

lebanies

Wild Horses
dick shinie

well I dont know if I pronounced it right,is the vice president of the great hero buch:p
dont let your mind go into naughty thoughts
 

Guybrush

Dittohead
what about afghanistan they put 3000 men in 6 containers and left them for 3 days in the middle of the dessert till the were dead,a horible death,ya when the temprature reachs 45 degree.

Even if there may be granules of truth in what you write, I highly doubt this claim (a logistical nightmare if there ever was one).
 

tht

akstavrh
that is sort of true, probably 3000 is using a different number system known only to seers and endearingly incoherent internet pixies (or they were huge fucking crates) but i know US special forces gave some captured talibanalqaeda a similar treat

judging by some of the corpses they also let the friendly cuddly afghans (the northern alliance) torture loads of them to death in a more baroque fashion
 
Last edited:

lebanies

Wild Horses
Know the truth

well,you have to focus on the aritcle as a whole,dont no mock just by finding some quote that you dont like or disbelive.
you did read,but the 3000 dead, is that what you saw in the whole article.
well if you read back in time you will know also that 500 prisoner were drawned to death in the (ghanji casstle) in afghanistan,besides the ones died in the containers.
This article is not about afghanistan if it was i could just tell you soooo many information about the attrocites the us troops done there,but as long as you listen only to one side media you will never know the truth.......
 

bruno

est malade
now days,every single day passes more than 150 people die in iraq but...........who will accuse the usa troups with any murder eh?what brought the us troops into iraq for?for freedom,all the iraqis sees now is death.
well,at least saddam walked to the roope in high heels,defient,and not scared....a leader.
he was insulted at the time the rope was on his neck,but he stood still....a leader.
yes the same like george buch when in 9\11 ,he flew like a rabbit into a safe house with his dick shini thing,yes such a leader,i can"nt imagine what the iron leader g.buch would do if he was in saddam"s shoe ,yes i can imagine.
it is not about the US to judje on saddam,history will.
oh for fucks sake.

how does this last dignified stance, this leader quality you gush over absolve him in any way of his crimes?

and hasn't it crossed your mind that iraqis might just be partly responsible for the current bloodshed in iraq? you will invoke resistance to occupation, but how is blowing up people queuing up for work resistance to anything?
 
Last edited:

adruu

This Is It
i heard the story about the cargo containers four years ago. ... not on the internet.

i have no idea if its true or not, and i probably never will. im actually incredibly surprised to read this here. I have never repeated what i heard to anyone.

i know seymor hersh called the troops in iraq the most vicious and brutal killers he's ever seen...that was off the microphone.

but to call saddam brave is clearly delusional...
 

bruno

est malade
it's fine to oppose the invasion and occupation of iraq, but to elevate hussein to martyr status on the grounds of a flawed judicial process is frankly an insult to the thousands that were tortured and killed under his régime. how many people would have been content with even a fraction of the facilities offered to him.
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
Well Haladja for one, the invasions of Iran and Kuwait for two others. If you want more specifics I'm sure Amnesty International will oblige you.

Do yourslef a favour Lebanies. Don't deify one monster in order to demonise another. The enemy of your enemy could just be a wanker himself.
 

vimothy

yurp
He deserved even worse

Joking aside, I have to agree that it's frankly rather silly to canonise Saddam simply on the basis of his having been executed by the Iraqi government. "Bravest" because dead? Plenty of Iraqis are executed every day (in much worse conditions, and with absolutely no judicial process, however compromised you believe it to be) and I'm quite sure that most die with a lot more dignity than Saddam - to say nothing of being infinitely less deserving of their fate. Saddam might be popular now ("Saddam: A Tribute" is the title of a recent article in the Guardian, for example) amongst left wingers and the anti-war set, but he is still responsible for the deaths of many of his own citizens, two regional wars and, to a degree, much of the sectarian chaos engulfing Iraq.

Whatever your opinions of the US liberation/invasion, Saddam was a murderous thug - hey the world just got lighter, so don't sweat it.
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
"Saddam might be popular now ("Saddam: A Tribute" is the title of a recent article in the Guardian, for example) amongst left wingers and the anti-war set"

Could you qualify that remark please. I consider myself left-wing and anti-war, but I make no excuses for Saddam and cheered inside when he was hanged. I don't deny there are those who see any enemy of the US as their friend but they're not the majority, or even a large minority. Call them Trots, the jihadi left, the idiot left, whatever you want, just not *the* left. Not in my name (etc).
 

lebanies

Wild Horses
Whatever your opinions of the US liberation/invasion, Saddam was a murderous thug - hey the world just got lighter, so don't sweat it.

Do you think the world is lighter now for the iraqis,now saddam is gone,well......I am sure that you know by now ,that they pity his days, at least there were no daily blood shed like now days.

as for halabja the curds revolted on saddams government in the middle of the war with iran and that would be considered as a an act of treason,and treason is punished by death in war time. well as for kwait all knows about the u.s ambassador in iraq appril glasspy who framed saddam to go into kwait by spreading the word that the US have no interest of what is happeneing between the two nations which was explained in the diplomatic language as a green light ,they did that ,to have the reason for the us to come to the gulf region...not for you ,but for the oil.
as for if you ask Amnesty International about the us troops I am sure that they will give you more crimes commited by them than saddam,you know abou ghreb prison..... ......
 

vimothy

yurp
"Saddam might be popular now ("Saddam: A Tribute" is the title of a recent article in the Guardian, for example) amongst left wingers and the anti-war set"

Could you qualify that remark please. I consider myself left-wing and anti-war, but I make no excuses for Saddam and cheered inside when he was hanged. I don't deny there are those who see any enemy of the US as their friend but they're not the majority, or even a large minority. Call them Trots, the jihadi left, the idiot left, whatever you want, just not *the* left. Not in my name (etc).

Sorry, you're quite right: Saddam might be popular now amongst some of the left-wing and anti-war set... (As this thread demonstrates).

There are still plenty of decent lefties (Berman, Kamm, Cohen, Hitchens, Aaronovitch, etc) who aren't pro-totalitarian (I would probably use the phrase "the pro-tyrant left"), just as there were during the Communist era. I don't think "Trots" is appropriate, as I would see Trotsky as having more in common with pro-intervention leftists, or even Neo-cons.
 

vimothy

yurp
Do you think the world is lighter now for the iraqis,now saddam is gone,well......I am sure that you know by now ,that they pity his days, at least there were no daily blood shed like now days.

I think this is a bit confused. The last poll of Iraqi public opinion I saw (December 2005, by Oxford Research International) had roughly a roughly 50/50 split of opinion in the interview population - just under half saying that the country is better off and just over saying that it is worse. (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=nation_world&id=3717385)
But opinion polls change (the previous poll in 2004 was much more supportive of the intervention), and it is not that hard to imagine, surely, that if the security situation were to improve (leading to social and economic stability - let's face it, Iraq could be a wealthy country if this were to occur), then the Iraqi public would feel that the intervention had been worthwhile.
You are wrong if you think that most Iraqi's mourn their dead "leader" (a better title for this thread would have been "Saddam, the bravest torturing despot of them all"): perhaps in the Sunni triangle where the population feels disenfranchised and under threat, but not in Shia or Kurdish regions.
As for there not being daily blood shed, well, obviously there was, Saddam murdered plenty - it just didn't make the news as often.

as for halabja the curds revolted on saddams government in the middle of the war with iran and that would be considered as a an act of treason,and treason is punished by death in war time.

Way to nail your colours to the mast - let's all sing the praises of genocide!
But I don't know where you have got this from; perhaps you could explain it a little (in which state treason in war is punishable by death, the view of international law, etc) and provide corroborating links.
I also take it from this statement that you believe that 1. Iraq's war with Iran was legally and morally justified (obviously not that concerned about American Imperialsim, if so), and 2. that the Kurds deserved it (you obviously don't value human life, if so), including the use of chemical weapons against them.
Interestingly, there are those who believe that Tony Blair could be charged with treason under British law, for betraying the country by taking it to an unnecessary and illegal war. Could Saddam not be accused of the same?

well as for kwait all knows about the u.s ambassador in iraq appril glasspy who framed saddam to go into kwait by spreading the word that the US have no interest of what is happeneing between the two nations which was explained in the diplomatic language as a green light ,they did that ,to have the reason for the us to come to the gulf region...not for you ,but for the oil.

So Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was the fault of the Americans was it, even though they actually liberated the country (which pissed off bin Laden no end)? This is doublethink worthy of any Jihadist ideologue. Obviously Saddam went there for oil - the origins of the conflict are to be found in the debts accrued by Iraq during the (justified?) war with Iran. Iraq wanted the Kuwaitis to wipe their debts, and to to cut oil production to push up the price of oil, thus paying for his (non-imperialistic, naturally) war. (I can certainly think of an appropriate if inane phrase here: No blood for oil. Oh, but wait, only the US is interested in oil).
Even if the US were to give a green light to Saddam's invasion (certainly not what i've heard: "U.S. ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie met with Saddam in an emergency meeting on July 25, 1990, where the Iraqi leader stated his intention to continue talks. U.S. officials attempted to maintain a conciliatory line with Iraq, indicating that while President Bush and Secretary of State James Baker did not want force used, they would not take any position on the Iraq-Kuwait boundary dispute and did not want to become involved. The transcript, however, does not show any statement of approval of, acceptance of, or foreknowledge of the invasion." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam#Tensions_with_Kuwait), Saddam would still responsible for the invasion. If I were to tell you that it's ok to kill someone, and you do, is their death my fault or yours? What about Iraqi agency in the conflict?
Again though, unless you explain yourself properly and provide some evidence it's quite hard to refute what you say.

as for if you ask Amnesty International about the us troops I am sure that they will give you more crimes commited by them than saddam,you know abou ghreb prison..... ......

Of all the things you've said, this is the most appalling load of bullshit (except the bit about the Hallabja Kurds being reponsible for their own genocide).
I've got an idea, why don't you get the relevant data and prove that, in both quantitative and qualitative terms, the treatment of prisoners under the US Armed Forces is worse than under Saddam? Because you can't?

Here's an account of life in Abu Grhaib under Saddam:

“‘They called all the prisoners out to the courtyard for what they called a ‘celebration.’ We all knew what they meant by ‘celebration.’ All the prisoners were chained to a pipe that ran the length of the courtyard wall. One prisoner, Amer al-Tikriti, was called out. They said if he didn’t tell them everything they wanted to know, they would show him torture like he had never seen. He merely told them he would show them patience like they had never seen.'’This is when they brought out his wife, who was five months pregnant. One of the guards said that if he refused to talk he would get 12 guards to rape his wife until she lost the baby. Amer said nothing. So they did. We were forced to watch. Whenever one of us cast down his eyes, they would beat us.’ ‘Amer’s wife didn’t lose the baby. So the guard took a knife, cut her belly open and took the baby out with his hands. The woman and child died minutes later. Then the guard used the same knife to cut Amer’s throat.’ There is a moment of silence. Then Idrissi says: ‘What we have seen about the recent abuse at Abu Ghraib is a joke to us.’”

Or perhaps you should read "The Republic of Fear".
 
Top