Saddaam Hussein given death sentence

[Nancy Allen``]

Does George W. Bush junior have gas chambers and death camps? I ask because by the way you talk you make him out to be more evil than Saddam could ever be. Has he done wrong? Unquestionably, however defending Saddam because 'well he's evil, he's expected to do those things' is sheer lunacy.

 

I pose a question to you now that the democrats have power in the senate. If they were able to pull troops from Iraq, what then? Do we just let the entire situation there collapse?

[Samuel Dravis]

Does George W. Bush junior have gas chambers and death camps? I ask because by the way you talk you make him out to be more evil than Saddam could ever be. Has he done wrong? Unquestionably, however defending Saddam because 'well he's evil, he's expected to do those things' is sheer lunacy.

It's more like, "well he's evil, everyone knows that already." He's not expected to do evil, but everyone knows he does. There's been absolutely no one defending Saddam in this thread AFAIK. This is not the case with Bush, however. Is Bush more evil than Saddam? No, I don't think so, but I personally expect the president not to act in the ways he has. With great power comes great responsibility and all that. The difference between Saddam and him is that he is responsible to us. Betraying the trust of people whom you're responsible for is a bad idea, and you're likely to make enemies if you do so. I'd guess he's figuring that out.

[Nancy Allen``]

Iraq was wrong, I think we all know that now. I think his greatest crime was going to war when people were making a lot of noise over not wanting it. And now that we're there we cannot just leave the Iraqi people to fend for themselves. We learnt that lesson in Somalia. In 2004 Bush was reelected despite the premise of Iraq, which showed that at the time people still trusted him enough to be their President.

 

As for 'Bush did this' and 'Bush lied about that' did any of this come from Fahrenhyte? Because there's a list of inaccuracies, quotes taken out of context and just plain lies, such as playing around with an opinion letter and news report to make it look like headline news saying Al Gore won.

[Mace MacLeod]

What context are you talking about, Nancy? Identify the following quote: "We cannot afford to wait for the proof which may come in the form of a mushroom cloud!" Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and co. deliberately misinformed the US public about the threat Iraq based in order to win public support for an invasion. This is the dictionary definition of lying. And don't even bother saying something about the US "bringing democracy" to Iraq. If the US really cared about democracy, it'd be blowing up half the planet right now.

 

Who's defending Saddam? Is anybody? They haven't posted here if they are. Some folks like Spider AL are questioning the ethics and standards of morality regarding his trial and sentence, but I haven't seen a single poster here defending Saddam himself. It's not that:

'well he's evil, he's expected to do those things'

, it's more like "Well, he's evil and we all know that, but if we do things like he did, doesn't that make us evil too?" Yes, the US does have gas chambers. Quite a few in Texas got a very good workout when Dubya was governor. Yes, the US has concentration camps. Abu Grahib and Guatanamo Bay are two notable examples. The US has deported people to countries where they don't even pretend to observe the Geneva Convention regarding torture just on suspicion they're terrorists, as in the case of Mohammed Arar, who was mistakenly deported to Syria. Here's a helpful link: https://www.hsdl.org/hslog/?q=node/3166

Of course, the Canadian authorities share some of the blame in this case, but how many more have there been that we'll never hear about? If Saddam Hussein is evil for killing and torturing hundreds of thousands of people, what the hell does that make Bush if he does the same thing?

[Nancy Allen``]

What context are you talking about, Nancy?

 

The context of excusing Saddam's actions because he's evil but not Bush.

 

Identify the following quote: "We cannot afford to wait for the proof which may come in the form of a mushroom cloud!" Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and co. deliberately misinformed the US public about the threat Iraq based in order to win public support for an invasion.

 

I never heard the actual quote. I know about weapons of mass destruction, which I think everyone knows by now is false. You have a link?

 

If the US really cared about democracy, it'd be blowing up half the planet right now.

 

How do you figure that?

 

It's not that:, it's more like "Well, he's evil and we all know that, but if we do things like he did, doesn't that make us evil too?"

 

Luke Force Chokes a Gammorean, he must be a Sith.

 

Really, there's no question the invasion was wrong. What Saddam did was many times worse and yet people are saying 'oh he shouldn't be put to death, he shouldn't hang' even if they appear to have fantasies of Bush being in Saddam's shoes.

 

Yes, the US does have gas chambers. Quite a few in Texas got a very good workout when Dubya was governor. Yes, the US has concentration camps. Abu Grahib and Guatanamo Bay are two notable examples. The US has deported people to countries where they don't even pretend to observe the Geneva Convention regarding torture just on suspicion they're terrorists, as in the case of Mohammed Arar, who was mistakenly deported to Syria. Here's a helpful link: https://www.hsdl.org/hslog/?q=node/3166

 

The link you provided leads to Canada having someone deported to Syria where he was tortured, because of a **** up with terror suspect lists. That's pretty bad, but there's nothing on gas chambers or concentration\death camps. The torture that took place at Abu Gharib and the claims of torture at Guatanamo are inexcuseable, but these are POW camps, not what the Nazis subjected the Jews to. In fact with Guatanamo conditions according to a recent news article are quite good.

 

http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/78066,CST-EDT-steyn01.article

 

http://patterico.com/2006/10/02/5156/pattericos-exclusive-interview-with-a-man-who-has-spoken-to-the-terrorists-at-guantanamo-part-one-introduction/

 

http://patterico.com/2006/10/03/5225/pattericos-exclusive-interview-with-a-man-who-has-spoken-to-the-terrorists-at-guantanamo-part-two-stashiu-arrives-at-gtmo-and-describes-the-terrorists/

 

http://patterico.com/2006/10/04/5228/pattericos-exclusive-interview-with-a-man-who-has-spoken-to-the-terrorists-at-guantanamo-part-three-hunger-strikes-suicides-and-suicide-attempts-and-the-detainees-mental-health/

 

http://patterico.com/2006/10/05/5229/pattericos-exclusive-interview-with-a-man-who-has-spoken-to-the-terrorists-at-guantanamo-part-four-the-treatment-of-the-detainees/

 

http://patterico.com/2006/10/06/5230/pattericos-exclusive-interview-with-a-man-who-has-spoken-to-the-terrorists-at-guantanamo-part-five-responding-to-press-accounts-of-gtmo-and-other-issues/

 

http://patterico.com/2006/10/05/5229/pattericos-exclusive-interview-with-a-man-who-has-spoken-to-the-terrorists-at-guantanamo-part-four-the-treatment-of-the-detainees/

 

Just the same however they're about five years too long in doing anything about the detainees there.

 

If Saddam Hussein is evil for killing and torturing hundreds of thousands of people, what the hell does that make Bush if he does the same thing?

 

Evidence of this being Bush's doing and the innocence of people subjected to any punishment play a huge part. If Bush had been rounding up innocent Muslims to be killed or tortured then he sould be subject to the same trial Saddam was and if found guilty the same punishment.

[Mace MacLeod]

The context of excusing Saddam's actions because he's evil but not Bush.

Who's excusing his actions? Where do you keep getting this from? Show me one single quote from this thread that shows a single person (myself included) who's defending Saddam Hussein's actions.

I never heard the actual quote. I know about weapons of mass destruction, which I think everyone knows by now is false. You have a link?

This was Bush himself. No, I don't happen to have a link, but this was part of a major news conference round about February 93.

How do you figure that?

Because the US does business with worse than Saddam Hussein every day. Go check through your wardrobe or belonging for labels that say: "Made In China". Ever heard of fellow named General Augusto Pinochet? Look him up. And while we're at it, the US sold Saddam Hussein conventional weapons and the blueprints to make his own chemical weapons factories during the Regan administration. This is not Michael Moore-style hyperbole, this is well-documented fact. Saddam = nasty, evil dictator. NOBODY is disputing that. And the US funded and supported him for decades, and others even worse.

Luke Force Chokes a Gammorean, he must be a Sith.

Luke Force Chokes several hundred thousand people and invades a sovereign nation for reasons he makes up an the fly. Hmm. Luke might not be such a nice guy after all.

Really, there's no question the invasion was wrong. What Saddam did was many times worse and yet people are saying 'oh he shouldn't be put to death, he shouldn't hang' even if they appear to have fantasies of Bush being in Saddam's shoes.

Many times worse? With all the deaths from the Iraqi invasion, he's barely several times worse. Getting closer and closer to twice as bad. And the US aided and abetted many of those deaths. Reagan and Bush Sr. helped him do it.

The link you provided leads to Canada having someone deported to Syria where he was tortured, because of a **** up with terror suspect lists. That's pretty bad, but there's nothing on gas chambers or concentration\death camps. The torture that took place at Abu Gharib and the claims of torture at Guatanamo are inexcuseable, but these are POW camps, not what the Nazis subjected the Jews to. In fact with Guatanamo conditions according to a recent news article are quite good.

 

Just the same however they're about five years too long in doing anything about the detainees there.

And Saddam had nothing like Nazi death camps either. The link I provided was meant to pertain strictly to the Arar case, not the US's lovely holiday camps they've set up like Guatanamo. You say yourself that what went on there and in Abu Grahib is inexcusable, so where do you draw the line? Look, hundreds of thousands of innocent people have died because of the US invasion. There is no dispute. The US has its lawyers working on the exact definition of "torture" to define how much pain and humiliation the can inflict on captives in Guatanamo and Abu Grahib and other places and still fall just this side of legal. WTF?

Evidence of this being Bush's doing and the innocence of people subjected to any punishment play a huge part. If Bush had been rounding up innocent Muslims to be killed or tortured then he sould be subject to the same trial Saddam was and if found guilty the same punishment.

Uh, he has. He invaded Iraq, remember? No weapons of mass destruction, no connection to 9/11, no nothing. And hundreds of thousands have died.

[Nancy Allen``]

Before I reply to this a question, if I may. What would be enough for you? For Bush to go down in history as the worst President the world has ever seen? The greatest evil ever to exist? For him to be tried and convicted for crimes against humanity and executed barbarically by Al Qaeda? What?

[Windu Chi]

Actually, even though I'm not Spider AL, I have been reading his posts, and that isn't at all what he has said. Not once. His contention is that the execution of SH is because it was ordered by an illegitimate court and an illegitimate government. Had he been tried and sentenced by a legitimate jury, then I believe AL would find less to be upset about.

What I see in his posts is alot of arrogance.

 

This doesn't change the fact, however, that our own leaders are STILL guilty of the same crimes SH was convicted of, and it IS hypocrisy to think that SH is getting what he deserves if our own leaders don't also deserve the same.

I'm assuming with this logic every soldier, commander and official from WWII

should be hang like those Nazis demons they was protecting the world from.

Saddam deserves to be hang by piano wire, in my opinion.

I wish we had Hitler to hang today.

Dammit !

 

You just can't keep peace on this planet without alot of blood being spilled.

Every war that is fought civilians are going to die.

 

You can't go ahead and execute everyone who fight in wars or conflicts that civilians end up being killed in.

If the pacifists of this society want to execute the soldiers, commanders and officals who had precipitated in conflicts and wars, you will have millions of people to round up.

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

The context of excusing Saddam's actions because he's evil but not Bush.

Nobody has "excused Saddam" in this thread. If you believe that anyone has "excused Saddam", then your comprehension is poor.

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

I never heard the actual quote. I know about weapons of mass destruction, which I think everyone knows by now is false. You have a link?

 

I'll field this.

 

The White House Press Archive.

 

Paragraph 24, Line 02.

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

Luke Force Chokes a Gammorean, he must be a Sith.

 

Really, there's no question the invasion was wrong. What Saddam did was many times worse and yet people are saying 'oh he shouldn't be put to death, he shouldn't hang' even if they appear to have fantasies of Bush being in Saddam's shoes.

"What Saddam did was many times worse"? Worse than what? Worse than what? Illegally invading two other countries, causing countless deaths and unmeasurable suffering, imprisoning people from other nations without charge indefinitely? Using torture to try to loosen their tongues? Worse than that? Pfah.

 

What is this Luke Skywalker analogy you're putting forward here? Are you suggesting that the US government's acts of international aggression are in some way "a one time occurrance"? "A freak incident"? If so, you're wrong. The US has since the second world war been responsible for funding and directly committing some of the greatest military atrocities on record. The invasion of Iraq wasn't a "new thing", nor an isolated case.

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

Does George W. Bush junior have gas chambers and death camps? I ask because by the way you talk you make him out to be more evil than Saddam could ever be.

Saddam didn't have gas chambers, Nancy. Can you absorb that? Saddam was an evil, brutal dictator, he wasn't Hitler.

 

And you're once again forgetting that the US and the UK funded, politically supported and armed Saddam. ALL his atrocities. ALL of them, WE SHARE RESPONSIBILITY FOR. He's not just "some evil guy over there in foreign-land". We helped him to do the things he did. US actions helped him to keep control in Iraq right up until 2003.

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

Evidence of this being Bush's doing and the innocence of people subjected to any punishment play a huge part. If Bush had been rounding up innocent Muslims to be killed or tortured then he sould be subject to the same trial Saddam was and if found guilty the same punishment.

Well the US certainly did have innocent muslims rounded up and tortured. And some of them are still in Guantanamo. And half a million Iraqi civilians dying as a result of the US invasion... doesn't strike you as incompatible with a world-view in which Georgie is a good guy compared to evil old foreign moustache-growin' Saddam?

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

The torture that took place at Abu Gharib and the claims of torture at Guatanamo are inexcuseable, but these are POW camps, not what the Nazis subjected the Jews to. In fact with Guatanamo conditions according to a recent news article are quite good.

They're not "POW camps", because the prisoners there aren't even given the rights of POWs. The US government quite specifically doesn't classify the men held in places like Guantanamo as "prisoners of war". If they did, they'd have to afford them some rights. Guantanamo could legitimately be called a concentration camp, but it's not a POW camp.

 

And please note, the site "patterico.com" you've linked to six times isn't a news site, it's the blog of a rabid right-wing nutcase. And the Sun Times article was an editorial piece by a columnist, not an independent review of Guantanamo by an organisation like the Red Cross.

 

But as we see from this article, the Red Cross is only allowed into Guantanamo on the condition that they don't tell anyone what they see in there.

 

Go to www.reuters.com if you actually ever want to read news.

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

As for 'Bush did this' and 'Bush lied about that' did any of this come from Fahrenhyte?

What's "Fahrenhyte"? We're quoting from reputable news sources... And Bush's own words here. You can't POSSIBLY argue with that, can you?

[Nancy Allen``]

Nobody has "excused Saddam" in this thread. If you believe that anyone has "excused Saddam", then your comprehension is poor.

 

And this from someone who claims Jews use the Holocaust as an excuse for attacking Palestine? I don't think anything else needs to be said.

[Mace MacLeod]

Before I reply to this a question, if I may. What would be enough for you? For Bush to go down in history as the worst President the world has ever seen? The greatest evil ever to exist? For him to be tried and convicted for crimes against humanity and executed barbarically by Al Qaeda? What?

WTF? I dunno, maybe some recognition that starting wars for bullsh!t reasons and helping people like Saddam Hussein along for decades isn't ethical? Maybe that this black-and-white "If you don't support Bush and our troops, you love al-Qaeda!" rhetoric the Republicans love to propagate is a complete load?

And this from someone who claims Jews use the Holocaust as an excuse for attacking Palestine? I don't think anything else needs to be said.

And there I was thinking you might be able to defend your views without resorting to personal attacks. Stick to the topic.

[Nancy Allen``]

And there I was thinking you might be able to defend your views without resorting to personal attacks. Stick to the topic.

 

Okay. Saddam Hussein is slated to be put to death by hanging in three weeks, after he was found guilty of crimes against humanity. Is this a fair punishment? Yes, I'm not sure about the death penalty and certainly question some forms of it, but it is the punishment Iraq has chosen. Would there be criticism had America carried out the trial? Of course there would, far greater criticism because Bush would be accused of using his influence and America would be seen as biased in their prosecution. People would criticise the UN putting Saddam on the stand because they don't believe justice would be carried out. A jury of his peers would be criticised because even though he might get off when judged through their eyes criticism would arise over the likes of Bin Laden, Kim Jong, Hamas, Palestine, ect presiding over a court of law. There is no way to provide a solution that will please people. None.

 

That goes doubly true for dealing with Bush. Perhaps the best way was back two years ago when people had the opportunity to vote him out. But despite the hatred he earnt over Iraq, despite the lies over weapons of mass destruction he was reelected, this time with no Florida scandal or any political manipulation that his naysayers can use to say he won it unfairly. So quite frankly the blame for Bush lies on you, yes YOU. You voted him in with full knowledge of the atrocities you lay at his feet, if you want Bush to be accountable for Iraq, what happens to terror suspects, September 11, and other crimes people claim against him, then shouldn't you take responsibility for voting him into power, and then ignoring the evils you level at him and choosing him again?

[ET Warrior]

The context of excusing Saddam's actions because he's evil but not Bush.

I'm not sure how many times we have to say this, but nobody is excusing Saddam's actions. Nobody is saying that Saddam was a nice guy. Nobody is saying he is innocent of horrible crimes against humanity.

 

Saddam is a bad, bad man. Everybody knows this, which is why we don't feel it is necessary to TALK about it. Just like I don't need to write a post explaining why it is that we need to eat food to survive.

 

Once again, just so it cannot be confused. Nobody is excusing Saddam. Nobody is even saying that Bush and Co. are necessarily WORSE than Saddam, only that they are ALSO guilty of the same crimes he was tried for.

[Nancy Allen``]

Once again, just so it cannot be confused. Nobody is excusing Saddam. Nobody is even saying that Bush and Co. are necessarily WORSE than Saddam, only that they are ALSO guilty of the same crimes he was tried for.

 

Gassing Kurds? Ordering the torture of his enemies? I had no idea Bush did this. I need a source, right now.

[Mace MacLeod]

For the record, I'm Canadian and therefore ineligible to vote in foreign elections, so no, I'm not one of the drooling meatheads who elected Bush either time. And for about the tenth bloody time, nobody is disputing Saddam's crimes or his derserving execution. What's it going to take for you to comprehend that, Nancy?

 

As for Bush being guilty of the same crimes Saddam is, well, the US government aided and abetted Saddam gassing Kurds and waging war because it armed and funded him for decades as well as selling him the plans for the chemical weapon factories that made the gas that killed the Kurds. The US is directly responsible for Saddam Hussein's manufacture of chemical weapons. If you hand a gun to someone and they shoot somebody else, you are also legally culpable for that person's death in any US court. You need a link? Okay, try reuters, CNN, the BBC, Amnesty International, the White House Press archives, name your poison. The US's long history with Saddam Hussein is well documented. Far too well documented for anyone in the Bush administration to even bother trying to deny it.

 

As for the torture bit, well, you said yourself in this very thread that what went on in Abu Grahib and Guatanamo Bay was inexcusable. What were you referring to if not the systematic torture and humiliation of the prisoners? You've seen the same pictures I have of the place that leaked out, right? Time Magazine must have a website, if you need to be reminded.

[Nancy Allen``]

But...people are saying Bush is guilty of the same things Saddam was charged with. Before this thread got sidetracked from the original topic, people claim George W. Bush junior aided Saddam and funded his chemical weapons that were used on the Kurds. That's how I interpret this.

 

Once again, just so it cannot be confused. Nobody is excusing Saddam. Nobody is even saying that Bush and Co. are necessarily WORSE than Saddam, only that they are ALSO guilty of the same crimes he was tried for.

 

Note that he's saying the same crimes he was tried for.

 

As for Bush ordering torture, did he? He's guilty of ordering torture? IIRC he condemned it and rightfully so. Any links that show he supported what happened at Abu Gharib? If you can provide one then I will go to every web site I can and say Bush is worse than Hitler.

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by ET Warrior:

Saddam is a bad, bad man. Everybody knows this, which is why we don't feel it is necessary to TALK about it. Just like I don't need to write a post explaining why it is that we need to eat food to survive.

We need to eat food to survive?

 

WHY OH WHY DID NOBODY TELL ME????////

 

-

 

Originally Posted by Mace MacLeod:

WTF? I dunno, maybe some recognition that starting wars for bullsh!t reasons and helping people like Saddam Hussein along for decades isn't ethical? Maybe that this black-and-white "If you don't support Bush and our troops, you love al-Qaeda!" rhetoric the Republicans love to propagate is a complete load?

Oooh, wouldn't that be nice. Yeah, that'd be a good start.

 

-

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

And this from someone who claims Jews use the Holocaust as an excuse for attacking Palestine? I don't think anything else needs to be said.

Hey, you've managed to fit an ad-hominem irrelevance and a misquote into one single post. Well done.

 

What I actually posted in the now defunct Holocaust thread was "The biggest impact that the holocaust has had on this generation, is to provide a catch-all excuse for Israel's continued atrocities in Palestine." Not "jews" mind you, but "Israel".

 

I stand by that statement. It's common for zionist extremists to cite the holocaust as one of the reasons they think jewish people will never be safe anywhere but within their own state, and therefore by implication they justify all the monstrous acts that the state of Israel has committed in order to "secure" that state. And you know, many jewish people who criticise Israel for committing war crimes and imply that the zionist element are exploiting the tragedies in jewish history for their own political gain are promptly labelled as "self-hating jews" by the... very vocal zionists both within and outside Israel. This is a morally indefensible situation.

 

But hey, your little ad-hominem is totally irrelevant to this discussion. Try reading and responding.

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

A jury of his peers would be criticised because even though he might get off when judged through their eyes criticism would arise over the likes of Bin Laden, Kim Jong, Hamas, Palestine, ect presiding over a court of law. There is no way to provide a solution that will please people. None.

I love the way you suggest that "palestine" in general is as evil as Saddam Hussein. How foolish.

 

Now hear this: It's nothing to do with "pleasing people". It's about doing the right thing. The moral thing. Trying Saddam in a court that was sanctioned under international law by truly international organisations would be the optimally moral way to try him. But unless our own leaders were tried in in the same court, this would also be immoral.

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

quite frankly the blame for Bush lies on you, yes YOU. You voted him in with full knowledge of the atrocities you lay at his feet, if you want Bush to be accountable for Iraq, what happens to terror suspects, September 11, and other crimes people claim against him, then shouldn't you take responsibility for voting him into power, and then ignoring the evils you level at him and choosing him again?

You don't really think that people who hold the kind of moralist beliefs that I do are the kind of people who would vote for Bush, or any of his cronies even once, do you? Bizarre. Furthermore, I'm English and therefore am unlikely to vote in US elections.

 

I voted against Tony Blair twice, if that helps you understand at all.

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

But...people are saying Bush is guilty of the same things Saddam was charged with.

Let's examine a few of the war crimes that Saddam can be charged with:

 

1. Illegally invading another country. (Kuwait.)

2. Ordering the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. (Kurds.)

3. Illegally imprisoning innocent people and torturing them. (Kurds, political dissidents.)

 

Now let's examine only a couple of the many war crimes that Bushie could be charged with:

 

1. Illegally invading another country. (Iraq.)

2. Ordering actions which inevitably caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. (Iraqis.)

3. Illegally imprisoning and torturing innocent men. (Foreign nationals who haven't been proved guilty in a court of law, tortured in Abu Ghraib and tortured with governmental sanction in Guantanamo.)

 

End of line.

[Cosmos Jack]

Saddam and Bush are guilty for doing what men have done in their position since the beginning of civilization.

 

The problem isn’t the actions of the men in power the problem is the men in power don’t really represent their people. This is true no matter what country you live in. The difference is how they maintain their power. Saddam did what was necessary to maintain his power in the society he ruled in. Americans if anything are too gentle, because we expect people to do what we think is in their best interest regardless of the reality. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn’t.

 

Go the saying “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink.”

 

Or

 

You can give Arabs the chance for a better life, but you can’t make them stop hacking each others heads off.

 

I look at it like this being a Dictator, President, or King whatever is like a big game. The people that know how to manipulate and control the world around them survive. If they make a wrong play they get hung in 30 days. SH should have been more willing to scratch the USAs back again. If so he would still be killing Kurds and waving guns in the air.

[Windu Chi]

 

What I actually posted in the now defunct Holocaust thread was "The biggest impact that the holocaust has had on this generation, is to provide a catch-all excuse for Israel's continued atrocities in Palestine." Not "jews" mind you, but "Israel".

 

I stand by that statement. It's common for zionist extremists to cite the holocaust as one of the reasons they think jewish people will never be safe anywhere but within their own state, and therefore by implication they justify all the monstrous acts that the state of Israel has committed in order to "secure" that state. And you know, many jewish people who criticise Israel for committing war crimes and imply that the zionist element are exploiting the tragedies in jewish history for their own political gain are promptly labelled as "self-hating jews" by the... very vocal zionists both within and outside Israel. This is a morally indefensible situation.

Yeah, whatever !

Hate in disguise?

 

 

1. Illegally invading another country. (Kuwait.)

2. Ordering the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. (Kurds.)

3. Illegally imprisoning innocent people and torturing them. (Kurds, political dissidents.)

 

Now let's examine only a couple of the many war crimes that Bushie could be charged with:

 

1. Illegally invading another country. (Iraq.)

2. Ordering actions which inevitably caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. (Iraqis.)

3. Illegally imprisoning and torturing innocent men. (Foreign nationals who haven't been proved guilty in a court of law, tortured in Abu Ghraib and tortured with governmental sanction in Guantanamo.)

 

End of line.

Nancy you are wasting your time arguing with a pacifist.

[ET Warrior]

Gassing Kurds? Ordering the torture of his enemies?

I'm pretty sure there was quite a lengthy discussion about the torture that occurs in the prisons the United States has set up outside of the country. I don't think I need to point that out.

 

And perhaps G.W. isn't guilty of 'gassing the Kurds', but you don't have to do the EXACT SAME THING as someone else to be guilty of the same crime.

 

For example, you stab your doctor with a scalpel blade because you're tired of him overcharging you. I shoot the bus driver because I was late to my appointment. Neither of us committed the exact same act, yet I'm pretty sure we're both guilty of murder, yes? Saddam Hussein is charged with being responsible for thousands of dead due to his orders. Thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians are dead as a result of Bush's orders.

[Nancy Allen``]

Did he order the deaths of the Iraqi people? Not Saddam's army or the Insurgents, did he order the military to bomb towns with the intent of killing non combatents? I truely find this hard to believe.

[TK-8252]

Did he order the deaths of the Iraqi people? Not Saddam's army or the Insurgents, did he order the military to bomb towns with the intent of killing non combatents? I truely find this hard to believe.

 

Did he know that an urban war would cause the deaths of thousands of civilians? Yes. Did he go through with the war anyway, which he KNEW had NO legal or moral justification - no WMD's, no al-Qaeda connection, etc. Yes he did.

[Nancy Allen``]

Yes, there's no denying that, and he is evil for doing so. There, happy? Feel vindicated? The question was did he set out to kill the people of Iraq or remove Saddam from power?

[TK-8252]

Yes, there's no denying that, and he is evil for doing so. There, happy? Feel vindicated? The question was did he set out to kill the people of Iraq or remove Saddam from power?

 

Clearly he did not make it his goal to kill Iraqi civilians. However, while it was not his intention to have so many of the 'liberated' Iraqis to be killed, it still happened. There is a point, I believe, when recklessness cannot be excused on the grounds that it's not intentional. His decision to invade was so reckless that it has turned a country which was, while one ****ty place to live, at least stable and not in the middle of an ethnic cleansing campaign.

 

It's like the story I heard on TV about a drunk driver on the wrong side of the freeway who slammed head-on into a limo, which was carrying a newly-wed couple and their family. The collision was so violent that at least one child killed in the accident was decapitated. For this, the drunk driver was not charged with anything less than murder. No, not involuntary homicide or manslaughter, but murder.

[Nancy Allen``]

A large part of the blame, don't forget, falls on Iraqi Insurgents who wanted Saddam to remain in power, but certainly we should not have gone into Iraq, and now that we are there we have to see it through. We cannot just leave it like Vietnam and Somalia. The African country is still suffering because of the clan fighting and butchers who used sarvation as a weapon of war.