blonde poker forum

So, do we think he should have been hanged?

I don't care who he is, I'm dead set against the death penalty and always have been.

Who are we to decide who dies and who lives?

I am in agreement with you Snoops. The death penalty is outdated and barbaric IMO.

I cannot think of a suitable punishment for such a man though.

I'm not going to say much on the subject but in my opinion, he deserved to die. Maybe spending life in a torture chamber would have been more appropriate. I'm glad that such an evil man has gone to hell.

WE didnt decide, an Iraqi court decided.

Its the penalty for his crimes in that country, and should be respected.

Sorry, perhaps I should have been more clear, when I said WE, I meant WE as human beings.

Even more than that... he made the law himself!

I'm against the death penalty.  But I won't be shedding any tears.

I saw an interesting thing today.  There was a spokesman for Amnesty on telly saying the British government hadn't done enough to prevent the execution taking place - although they had voiced their opinion that the death penalty is wrong in any country.  The amnesty bloke said that they should have done more to intervene to have prevented it from happening.

I know it's a slightly different thing, but the same bloke was on a while back, saying that the West had no right to 'intervene' in Iraq no matter what Saddam had done.  Although at the same time he was condemning Saddam for his atrocities.

Well I thought it was interesting...

I found it very interesting that the crimes he was hung for were carried out whilst he was an ally of the west. (We didn't seem to mind back then!) Apparently that did NOT get mentioned in his trial.

Even after some of these crimes were committed the US provided him with the know how of how to make chemical weapons and Germany provided him with actual biological weapons.

I am absolutely against the death penalty,  we shouldn't kill anything in my opinion.

He looked very calm for a guy who knew what was about to happen. The very fact he didn't want to wear the hood showed he was 100% determined to put across a message of strength to his supporters. 

Regardless of what you thought about him as a leader, Iraq seemed a safer place to be when he was in control than it is now with our help. The level of violence is far greater without proper control even if that control was through fear rather than a fair Government

Oh my !!!    I am shocked.

I for 1 am totally for the death penalty. Brutal murders and violent rapists and child abusers should be executed or at the very least castrated in the case of the latter 2.

Stick em in a cell for 30 years and it costs the state a fortune.

Why should the likes of Ian Huntley be allowed to stay alive??

shall I cancel my plans for the next 48 hours?

I sense a need for extra popcorn supplies....

Me too!

I'm sure Zaire was safer under Mobutu, Cambodia under Pol Pot, Serbia under Milosovic, Germany under Hitler etc etc etc - if you were the right type of person of course!!!!!!

amnesty and the human right groups need to work out what they want

they point out human rights abuses and ask for the rest of the world to intervene

then when the do intervene they complain about people intervening where it doesnt concern them

i believe that in extremme cases of murder where the evidance is undeniable that the death penalty should be implemented

but i dont think it should be in place for most murders etc due to the fact that you can bring the person back

when 20 years later they work out its a misscarridge of justice

actually that's not entirely an unfair comment Sark.  The people in Iraq at least knew where the violence was coming from before, now it's just totally random and anarcic.   It's going to take a long time to rebuild Iraq and restore it to a peaceful place.

I'm not against the death penatly for this sort of thing though.  The man was one of the most evil persons to have ever lived and deserved to die.

As for the death penalty for others, I don't particually agree with killing people but I think there should be situations (like this) where crimes are just so horrific that it requires a horrific punishement.  Of course the next arguement would be wheres the line between enough of a crime to warrent it and just enough to not warrent it?

The comment about sticking them in a cell for 30 years, why should the tax payer have to pay for that sort of thing?  It's not cheap to keep someone in prison, yet alone the security that someone like Huntley requires.

How do you mean?  lol.   I am not supporting the guy, but in a country such as Iraq who haven't had a democracy before, giving them it is going to cause confusion and grief for many years to come. It can't be done straight away. That is why I feel a dictatorship is a better option in some occasions, as long as it is overseen by civilised authority to prevent human rights infringements. 

The crime that Saddam was ultimately hanged for was getting on the wrong side of the US.

As long as you're doing the big boys' bidding, you can do whatever you want.

Personally, I'm against the death penalty only because of the risk of wrongful convictions - I have no objection on moral grounds. Therefore the hanging is correct. The real scandal is that it came 20 years too late.

Agreed not for all murderers but for the worst cases deffo, Saddam should be hung again just for good measure

a dictatorship overseen by a civliised authority?

of course a dictactor would welcome that. I just rang the North Korean Presiudent and asked him, he was in a conferene with Unicef and Amnesty and asked not to be disturbed.

Good post Andrew - this is what I was trying to say earlier.

People are always criticising Adolf Hitler, but people forget that he made the trains run on time.

We only ever hear the bad stuff...

*can't find the right smiley but I'll assume you'll all get the point*

lol,  What I should have said was, taking away a man who brought control to a region before planning for a suitable replacement Government is bad planning in my view.  It is better to have control of any kind rather than none at all.  If the US and Brits left Iraq now, there would be absolute chaos And destruction. Surely brutal control is better than none at all.

Not for 5000 dead Kurds it wasn't.

What annoyed me most was the politicians who continually vote against the death penalty in this country and refuse to deport foreign murderers back to their own countries because those countries have the death penalty couldn't contain their glee when it was announced that Saddam was going to be exucuted.
Margaret Beckett and Jack Straw to name two.
Remember Straw refusing to deport Pinochet?
Hypocrites the lot of 'em

OH MY GOD :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

that is ludicrous. Its the brutality that is the key not the lack of control.

I reckon  people might do without a bus timetable for a while if they know that they and families aren't unsafe, persecuted, tortued etc

Wasn't it Mussolini who made the trains run on time?

ok, before I get a knock on my door by someone  :D ( I am a proud Brit, I even have Union Jacks as my avatars ).

I hate what he was and I think he was a terrible man. However he did bring control to the Country. I think it could have been planned better than it was.  People would not be getting kidnapped, murdered and raped now had the planning been better.  Sectarianism within Iraq has always been an issue of course, but now it would spiral out of control if we were to leave.  We will be there for many years to come, probably the rest of my life and I am 27.

yes Sark, the planning has for a post Saddam era completely gone to Pol pot. We can agree on that.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think we should consider 'running costs' when it comes to life and death.

Weeds?

I'm waiting for someone who's wife and/or children have been brutally raped, tortured and murdered to come on and say they don't believe in the death penalty.

I think when someone has adequately displayed that he has no consideration between life and death, then you should do what is best for society as a whole, and thats not spending £30k a year to give some scumbag a place to live.

I'm sure people in that frame of mind would do (or vote for) many things they wouldn't normally.

Once again, I understand what you are saying completely. However, when it comes to human life, I don't think any being on this planet has the right to play God and make a decision regarding whether someone's life will continue or not. I think it is that belief which will mean I go around in circles debating it with anyone, but I genuinely respect and follow your view.

I'm ducking out of this debate now, My new years resolution is to cut down on the  ;izimbra;

Well I think Iraq is definitely a better place to live now.

The new government have their own torture chambers and death squads fully operational and once we finish training up the army and police we will be able to withdraw and leave em to it.

They also know if they don't do what the yanks tell em they will be hanged.

Satisfactory ending to an unsavoury  worm that was Saddam Hussain

What does it take for someone to deserve to die? I am not god, as such i cannot claim if someone deserves to die. Especially after such a poor trial, were you all aware that the defence were not allowed to cross examine witnesses!!!!!




Good thing we have Judges then! The victims are not supposed to decide on the sentence.

If Saddam deserves to die, what punishment is due to those that approved selling chemical weapons to him for up to 2 years after Halabja was gassed. A raise and a knighthood?

Are the ten commandments just guidelines ?

For me the death penalty should never have been abolished. It winds me up to no end knowing that I am paying taxes to home and feed some of these "people".
As for Saddam, good riddance.

I hope so....my neighbour has one fine ass

:D

 rotflmfao



 ;bumwiggle;

or

;izimbra;

BLAH BLAH MEOW CHOW!

That's what I think about this debate.

Saddam = Evil

Execution = Correct on any moral scale.

Talkamongstyaselves!

Fair enough. 

Bush next?

Yes please.
 ;popcorn;

By employing capital punishment one simply lowers oneself to the level of those punished. I don't see how executing someone (anyone) could in any way be a good starting point for a new nation. It utterly contradicts concept of human liberty, rights and dignity.

That said, yes, Saddam probably was an evil dictator, but for that matter there are a couple more of those around, and no, killing him did not make Iraq any more secure, safe or democratic than it is now. Prison would have been a far more suitable alternative, and even that is very disputable.

I for one, agree that it is good we got rid of Saddam, but as far as everything is concerned that happened within Iraq, under his rule, it is very difficult to hold him for those things accountable on a legal basis, using a Western legal system. After all, he was the ruler of that place, so if he decided to kill some people in their, how exactly can you disallow him to do so. Westphalia 1648, anyone? Technically, all he did was put himself into the same category as any US governour signing a death sentence in their respective court?! ... OK, that paragraph was a little blasphemous.  ;popcorn;

Anyway, a couple of points, probably some already mentioned before:

- Civilised countries should not (and usually do not) extradite people to places where they are threatened with the death penalty. Shame the US seemed to apply different rules in this case

- Ten commandments, anyone? Thought the US called themselves a Christian nation of some sort?

- Lowering oneself to someone elses standards is just plain stupid. The best way to demonstrate the superiority over 'new Iraq' over 'old Iraq' would have been to not execute Saddam, but instead afford him what everyone deserves. A fair trial (it's not exactly fair when your lawyers keep getting shot, is it? and there's a fair few other reasons, too, but no need to go into detail, I think), a just sentence and hopefully a lifetime to sit in prison and not be able to sleep at night because of your bad conscience. Death just seems like the easy way out for everyone involved ..

- As far as Ian Huntley and co. are concerned, the same applies. Furthermore, I'd rather have 20 brutal rapists, murderers &c pp. in prison and costing the state money than one innocent person executed, just because of some missing piece of evidence that only turned up a couple of years later (If anyone's interested, google for exonerees or innocently executed in the US, it's long, long lists. One link: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=110 (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=110) ...)

'nuff said

Wasn't Saddam a great friend of America, didn't he attack Iran with American support.  When he was gassing the Iranians with chemicals bought from Britain and the USA nobody appeared too concerned.

Hypocrite: the man who murdered both his parents... pleaded for mercy on the grounds that he was an orphan.  ~Abraham Lincoln

Agreed but it's amazing he wasn't executed 20 years ago when he was actually committing the crimes! Back then he was our buddy.

The US has the death penalty, so it would be highly hypocritical if they didn't extradite people to places where they could be punished by the death penalty.

Not saying I agree with the death penalty, or if the US is a civilised country, but just highlighting the point.

POTW!!!!!

Personally i am against the death penalty - full stop - it does not matter what the person has done.

I think i read somewhere that the death penalty actually works out more expensive than the life imprisonment. it takes about 10 years to execute someone in the States and once you include the appeals, the appeals of the appeals, and dozens of lawyers its cheaper to just lock them up. (the criminals that is not the lawyers that is :) .)

Gotta agree there.

For me, the most ludicrous argument in favour of the death penalty is that it's cheaper to execute people than punish them by other means.

If that is the grounds on which we are basing our desicions to, as a state, take a human life from this world, it would be dangerous precendence indeed.


This doesn't sit well with me though, for a mulititude of reasons.

- The US is not a Christian nation. That is made quite clear by their constitution.

- The Ten Commandments are Old Testament doctrine, Christians are more into the New Testament. In one of the Gospels of the New Testament, (can't remember which one) Jesus pretty much spells out how much they don't matter anymore. Loving your neighbour as you would love yourself was the jist.

- Not far away from "Thalt shall not kill" in the holy book is the old chestnut "an eye for an eye"

- The first five books of the Old Testament (in which Moses got his commandments form Mt. Sinai, also documented about 40 other crimes that were punishable by death.

- For the above reason, the translation of the commandment "Thalt shall not kill" is probably more accurately "Thalt shall not murder" I need not point out the fundamental difference between the two.


Don't get me wrong, I'm very against the death penalty. I just don't think that invoking religious doctrine into the argument does either side any favours. (Claw wouldn't have made me laugh with her neighbour's ass joke if we didn't though, so I'll let you all off)

Look at the Shawshank Redemption. Thank God they didn't execute poor Andy!

pwned

My view is that some people don't deserve to live. Some mistakes will happen, but correct me if I am wrong the stats on those incorrectly hanged are very low. I would rather they hang 10,000 and get one wrong than to let 10,000 rapists/killers live.

Funny how the chinesse leaders can murder 10,000's and we sign agreements with them.
 lets face it Saddam died because the west wants/needs Oil, we didn't go to oust him for the good or saftey of the iraqi people we did it for personal gain.

We play cricket with countrys lead by mass murderers.

We stand by and watch ethnic groups be 'cleansed', then wonder why they stand together and fight back.

We sat cowering at the prospect of the Islamic Bogey man.

I would of been a damm sight happier today if certain western leaders had been punished for the crimes against humanity they have committed in the name of 'freedom' and (their) God.

So we're killing the rapists? Ok

The 19 year old guy who sleeps with the 15 year old girl has commited statutory rape. Is he getting hung too?

Of course providing that the 'wrong person' is not your family member or yourself. ;)

10,000 to 1 is one made up stat that I'm choosing not to get on board with.

It's not just the innocents, it's the degrees as well.

Snoopy talks about killing Tim Robbins from Shawshank, what about executing the Morgan Freeman character?

It's not just the bible that either side throw at each other in this debate....





Essentially the same point used to argue both sides. The death penalty is something that I think people rarely change their minds about.

dawn french is good in Little Britan abroad

three more posts to catch up

 ;iagree;

:redcard:

nearly there

someone gag ariston and ginger

ariston aint saying another word til he finds the facts, so.........wheres that ginger!!

Vote now!

http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=18487.0 (http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=18487.0)

In the Saddam case, was it a hung jury?

Of course providing that the 'wrong person' is not your family member or yourself. ;)
[/quote]

It works both ways I guess if someone killed a member of my family i would want them hanged, but if one of my family was hanged in error I would be against the death penalty. I haven't seen the film you are referring to

I never understand why the term statutory rape is used in this case, so no doesn't apply.

The biggest problem for me was that the trial was such a farce. How can you hang someone after the defence lawyers walked out because the trial was a joke. In this case it was clear that idiot bush was going after Hussein and that was that. The rest of it was just a charade.



Also, we have no moral high ground to stand on. Did you know that in the 1950's we tested nerve gas on our own soldiers to find out the minimum required to kill a man. The soldiers were told they were testing a cure for the common cold. Who was hung for that atrocity, no-one.


Western governments are just as bad as those they criticise and persecute, they are just better at hiding the evil they do IMO.

Forget that example for now then.

A child is killed, the parent murders the killer. Is the parent to be put to death?

What if the parent kills the killers child ?

For those who support the death penalty the parent should be sentenced to death

What if the child kills the murderer's parents?

any killer should get the death penalty.  This is not my opinion by following the logic of the supporters of the death penalty - life for life...

No human is allowed to kill or murder another human. Only God can take a life. (an eye for an eye doesn't mean 'he killed her so I can kill him').

It's quite worrying that people think it's ok for a human to take a life. The person that hung Hussain is now a murderer, so should he be hanged? If so, the person who hangs him...

Christians aren't just 'into' the New Testament. It's easier to read and understand, but the Old Testament is just as vital to our lives as the rest. We sometimes need help in understanding the books in the bible. That's kindofa what church, layreaders and ministers are for. We all have an opinion on this, so, I've said my piece. Please, communicate with me through PM on this. I will not enter into an argument in an open forum as my beliefs are my own.

bliadhna mhath ur.

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves the whole world blind and fixadent shares worth a punt

Even the most ardent capital punishment supporters don't believe it should be applied to the severly mentally deficient.

repwned!

You say can't say that about your own posts, some-one else has to declare it.....


repwned!

There ya go  :)up

Bush should be locked in torture chambers and be forced to play scrabble.....

Was watching the news footage with the missus.

The hooded executioners were ushering Saddam towards the noose.

What does she ask me....

"Why are the terrorists doing that? I thought we had him?"

FYP

PMSL

 :D

I wonder what the odds are that he actually got hanged. He is reknowned for using doubles, I woudn't be surprised if he was sipping a pina colada listening to the girls aloud greatest hits album laughing at the world.

Where does he keep his Girls Aloud CDs?

no idea, i know he didn't steal one off me coz mine is still here right next to me

In Iraq!




Where does he keep his armies?

Surely he can afford an ipod?

Enough of this bringing levity to a serious situation!

Stop that now and I mean IT!

(please please someone get the PB reference)

I would guess given his past he is capable of commiting the horrible crime of downloading girls aloud of the net and burning it to CD.

Up his sleevies!

It's all about degrees though, at what point do we draw the line.

Saddam downloaded Girls Aloud via Allofmp3.com. Does he still need to be executed, he did pay the Russian copyright fee.

I don't think he would play girls aloud anyway...

That would be the true crime, rather than the issue of where they were sourced.

wrong

Right I think you'll find.  Although the video DVD would be a different matter...

in that case the pussycat dolls or whatever they are called would be much better choice....

I detect a worrying tendency to turn serious and possibly even interesting topics into random chatter.

Scared of controversy?

Anyway, couple of replies to previous posts:

Tank: Both OT and NT matter, however OT requires more interpretation and is not to be taken literally in every aspect, some books within are prose, poems, songs &c. and should be considered as such. If you want to read something really worrying, just look at Judges - if you don't put a lot of thought into it and read it in context, I think the message could be quite disturbing.

Anyone who supports death penalty: Was just wondering, based on what you decide who deserves to be executed?

(A) Some higher, universal set of moral standards?
(B) Your own definition of morality?
(C) Whatever your Government, say the UK's decided to be the law?
(D) The UN's definition? The UNDHR? Amnesty's?
(E) Religion?

If so, concerning case (A), what would that morale be, and how could anyone decide on it?

(B) Who gives you the right to decide on morality of everyone? (Well, actually that's what I do, but I find it difficult to be so convinced of my own view on morality and justice that I could use these standards to kill anyone)

(C) So much for Sovereignty, then? In that case, surely you would also argue that we should intervene everywhere, where common UK law is contradicted? Where do you draw the line?

(D) None of these support the death penalty for similar reasons as given under (B)

(E) This is probably the hardest part to argue against, if someone claims their god forces them to commit any given action, including performing capital punishment. But then again, all states involved in this particular case are secular ones. That aside, being Christian myself, I cannot accept any other religion as a justification for anything whatsoever, and Christianity does not condone murder. And the difference between murder and capital punishment is a fine line ..


Hope I make some sort of sense, would be interesting to hear opinions on this morality issue. Oh, I'm probably going to be writing my dissertation on something related to this, so I might quote you all ;)

Didn't the 'Christian God' kill many 'non-followers' according to the bible?

The Life of David Gale, was a panny liberal not going to change anyone's mind kind of film, but I enjoyed it as I'm on board with that crowd anyway.

The following argument I found rather compelling.....



When you kill someone, you rob their family not just of a loved one, but of their humanity.

You harden their hearts with hate…you take away their capacity for civilized dispassion…you condemn them to bloodlust.

It’s a cruel and horrible thing.  But indulging that hate will never help.
The damage is done, and once we’ve had our pound of flesh, we’re still hungry.

We leave the death house muttering that lethal injection…was just too good for them.

Only if you take it literally.

Besides which, God having the right to take life would not affect a human's right (or lack thereof) to take the life of a fellow.

Dont all the non followers/believers burn in the fires of hell forever anyway ?

Again, hell isn't supposed to be a literal thing.

Hell is just a place devoid of the love of God. It was the Coca-Cola company that came up with all the fire, brimstone, tridents and the bad kind of red hot poker imagery.

(I know it wasn't, but the first two sentences are serious)

Ah the scientific answer below...


Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or Endothermic (absorbs heat)?

"First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate that they are leaving."

"I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore no souls are leaving."

"As for how many souls are entering Hell, lets look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that most souls go to Hell."

"With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially." "Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, then Hell must expand proportionately as souls are added."

This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the rate at which souls  enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year, that "it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you," and take into account the fact that I still have not succeeded in having that event take place, then #2 cannot be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and will not freeze."

God used people on earth, 'agents of God' so to speak, to carry out these killings.

(I'm a born-again atheist by the way - just to clarify my position)

;iagree;

 :goodpost: I would be interested in some replies too.

what about heaven?

Is it cold out there?

Is it full of executioners ?

i haven't read the thread but would just like to say i despise the fact that this was essentially done in my name even though blair says it wasn't. capital punishment is wrong in my eyes.

it is a simple as this if someone thinks its ok to kill supposedly 1 hundread an summat ppl prob more like thousands of ppl then he deserves to die.saddam was a dangerous man an would of continued to cause big trouble.

he makes me so sick its unreal,why do ppl have to do worng things like he did,i jus hope the continue to combat the war on terror!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

just  watched  the clip...why??  voyeurism most probably


and it has made me sick to the stomach

I was undecided upon capital punishment

now i am decidely against it!!

Hanging him was too easy on him.

Many years ago, in my GCSE English days, we had to do an essay on the issue of capital punishment.  After much research, I ultimately concluded that I was against it, primarily because of the risk of executing an innocent person and the fact that the 'deterrent' argument didn't really hold true (e.g. those States in the US with the death penalty don't see reduced crime rates compared to the ones without).  Nothing has ever really swayed me from this view.  I remember watching a documentary called '14 Days In May' which followed a death row prisoner in the two weeks to his execution and its one of the most powerful things I've ever seen on TV.  At the time there seemed to be genuine doubt about the guy's guilt (not sure if this was ever resolved) but he was still executed.

Having said that, there is little doubt about Saddam's guilt for a whole host of atrocities and I feel no remorse for him being gone.  However, the whole execution process and the ensuing media glare that surrounds it still has a 'sinister' feel to it that doesn't sit comfortably with me.

I did a bit of searching on the internet earlier and, despite the official 'restraint' in the TV coverage of the execution there is already footage around of the whole execution, recorded on a mobile phone camera by one of the witnesses.  It was not difficult to find - its already linked to on Saddam's Wikipedia entry.  I've also seen footage, several months ago, of some of the Western hostage executions (e.g. Nick Berg, Ken Bigley).  Regardless of the differing levels of 'dignity' attached to the two events (in the sense that one was an 'official' act of justice whilst the others were the most horrific examples of terrorism/barbarism imaginable), and ignoring the fact that the other footage was undoubtedly much more difficult viewing, the Saddam execution scenes still brought about the same feelings of unease within me that I am viewing a 'healthy' life being summarily brought to an end at the hands of others.  The fact that the two trigger similar emotions in me suggests that I am unable to differentiate between the two at some basic level.

Regardless of the arguments as to whether someone deserved it or not (and Saddam is about as 'deserving' as I could imagine anyone to be) I still find the whole thing to be something which sits uncomfortably with me.  Therefore, I guess my views on capital punishment have not changed over 15 years since I was first asked to think about it.

Sheriff

I personally couldnt bring myself to watch the hostage executions



and I'm regretting watching saddam's hanging

I think this one may come from behind with 5 minutes to go in the poll... dont you guys???


POST HERE QUICK!!

la la la

hmmmmmm i need another la then i can name that tune

wat clip have u watched lol hav i missed summat

There's a link to his full execution on the Saddam page on wikipedia.

here's one <<link removed>>

Laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa la la la la la laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!

Just to clarify the situation, I've removed 2 direct links to the unofficial execution footage to prevent people not wishing to see it (perhaps thinking that its the standard footage from TV) from clicking on them.

For anyone who wants to watch this, my earlier post tells you how you can get to it.  However, I'd rather people who do want to watch it make the extra few clicks than have anyone who doesn't want to view it launching it without knowing what they're about to see.

Please do not post any further links to the internet footage of the execution.

Sheriff

Yes Sir. Mr Sheriff!

Howsabout some links to girls kissing?  ;kev;

Search Google video

For girls kissing or executions?

the road to amarillo

capital punishment- generally wrong- even 0.1% doubt is too much

In this case - right- hope he rots in hell- there is no doubt about his crimes and his guilt

His "trial"- a farce- made a mockery of so called justice- the dead deserved better

American ( and our puppet Island) foreign policy- selective and flawed there are other dictactors with enough evidence against them- but no action (especially if they happen to be right wing and or economacally viable trading partners)

I for one have no faith in a "war against terror" waged by a country that allowed NORAID to collect money openly on the streets of their cities to fund terrorists that bombed and shot our citizens in our country.(this happens to be the one of many hypocrises that they alloweed to carry on until someone actually struck at their own_country)

Rant over- have finished my bottle of wine and am going to bed

For both.

If you want 'dicks on  a back' and "k-9 sex" search 2+2 ;)

edited: dicks on planes LOL

I got told off for posting the link to the later, lol.

I've waded in head first to the Mallu topic. So I may as well upset a few people on this one too.

Who gives anyone the right to take the life of another person?

Killing a muderer drops the state to the level of the muderer.

And anyway, life imprisonment with no chance of parole is much bigger deterent to murder than capital punishment.

not in this country


playstations,x-boxes,xmas dinners..........


but then we dont have the death penalty

Good post.

I would say there is no deterrent to murder. A person's own moral compass decides if they're comfortable with killing someone else. If they're at this level, they're beyond the point where they'll think 'Hang on, if I get caught I'll go to prison for ever - I'd better put the knife down'.

For me, the main concern with criminals is to ensure that they are not able to commit further crimes. In a world with perfect evaluation of guilt, execution fulfills this in the swiftest, cheapest way. Obviously, we don't live in a world where the guilty are all guilty, so mistakes are made, which means we can't just execute all murderers.

As for Saddam, the man clearly viewed other people as entirely disposable when compared to his own aims. Treating him in the same manner seems entirely appropriate. From a political perspective, it also draws a line under his reign and may allow the country to move on (though not any time soon).

Move on in which direction?

The fact that his hanging was took place on Eid al-Adha is not the smartest moves as this will anger many Muslims and will bring up the subject of Kurds who were denied the satisfaction of having a trial regarding the crimes against Iraqi Kurds, but this would lead to uncomfortable questions of USA's actions during those times, so no surprise there.

Yet again USA managed to create more reasons to be distrusted by even more people.  (I just wonder if they do it on purpose or because they are really ignorant)  - and please don't tell me that present Iraqi government is sovereign.

The whole trial of Saddam was one big joke, regardless what he has done.

Happy New Year Every1

I would have had no problem with any penalty he was given as long as he had a fair trial. the trial was a shambles, his lawyers didn't have access to him and they got killed way too often IMO..kindoff a problem as well...also the changing of the judges half way through not really right.

Now I know he didn't do fair trials himself but all moral high ground has been lost with this trial.

They should has gassed the **** in the hole they found him and claimed he topped himself. It would have saved alot of time and money.

i have to be carefull here coz people will think i am with sadam,,,..but i do know personaly one of his lawyers from the old days 20 years ago,,,,he never agreed with sadams regime,,,,but he strongly said that the country was a safer place when he was in power and people knew where they were with him,,although he was crazy...the country was a lot safer ok scared but safe,,,this lawyer tells us of stories that happened 20 years ago,, he could write a book or 10,,,,.
my personal opinoion of sadam a few years ago was to kill him asap but after i have heard some stories about him,,.,.,.i still say hes better dead,,, but i think british people in genral dont know the full facts,,,,,..,.,.,to be honest guys where was the weapons of mass destruction ???????? i still dont like him mind ,,but fair is fair ,.,.,,...

He,,,,,,,,,,,..used them,,,,to wipe out the Kurds,,,,,...

when.,, i write with ,.,these comas ,.,and stops dont you know,.,,,its a code ?/.,.or,, do i ,,.,stutter,,.,.??,.,.

I don't think there is a need to establish if he was evil or not, plenty of stuff well documented over many years to tell you the answer. But i guess if Iran can claim the Holocaust was faked people will argue Saddam was a wuss :)

snoopy said...


".....when it comes to human life, I don't think any being on this planet has the right to play God and make a decision regarding whether someone's life will continue or not. I think it is that belief which will mean I go around in circles debating it with anyone, but I genuinely respect and follow your view......"


One assumes you exclude Murderers? Murderers can make the decision, but non-Murderers can't?

Happy New Year!

xx

Hang on, are you saying that standing in opposition to the death penalty means we approve of murderers.


I take it back, we have a new winner.  ;hattip;

From a purely pragmatic point of view, disposing of him 'in the the hole they found him' would have been the best option. The trail was always going to be a messy sham and Saddam was always going to get the death penalty.

I am saying, & I said, nothing of the sort.

But all this "we have no right to take human life" balarney makes me smile. I repeat, presumably Murderers DO have that right?

lol I can't believe I have to type this but;

No they don't..that's why it's against the law.

Sorry wise old man..but what you said doesn't make much sense.

Maybe he made a lot of sense, we're just not old and wise enough to see it yet.

Something to look forward to I guess. ;)

"Wise old man" (misread?) is simply paraphrasing wise young beagle who thinks, & said....

".....when it comes to human life, I don't think any being on this planet has the right to play God and make a decision regarding whether someone's life will continue or not...."

One assumes it follows that he does not think Murderers have to comply with this. The victim certainly get's no choice.

Murder is wrong, I think we're all on the same page on that anyway and don't need much too much convincing.

If two wrongs made a right, you would have a very strong argument indeed.

It isnt as simple as saying all murderes should be executed etc but the prosecution should have the power to ask for it in the most extreme cases. Ian Huntley is the obvious one. I cant possibly understand why anyone would be againt having him killed in the most slow and painful way possible.

Somone explain to me why someone who kills and sexually abuses 2 young girls and then burns their bodies should have any rights??

That is the ultimate example i know but there is probably 25% of the murders that deserve it. Like those kids who stabbed that guy coming out of the tube station to nick his phone. Scum of the earth. They should swing.

Oh, and errr.... Happy new year !!

There are some commemorative Saddam T-Shirts selling on eBay.

They're a bit tight around the neck, but they hang well.









































 ;shame;

You can shut it - just enjoy (?) your last ever ciggie this evening.

Happy New Year fella.

Happy New Year to you too

In the same way the Jews knew where they were with Hitler.  In the same way that anyone who might have potentially been a threat to Pol Pot in Cambodia knew where they were.  The same way the Muslims in the former Yugoslavia were clear where they stood with Milošević.

Bet all those people were delighted to know where they stood.

lol     who makes these jokes up so quick   :D

Get back in your cupboard, you!

I just came out for some air, it is a lonely place to spend each day

i know, its funny how quickly people forget what he was actually like. He used to put poeple through meat grinders for his amusement alledgedly!!

Any skeletons in there?

To many  :D , just like everyone else

Like I said earlier, hanging was too easy on him.

 ;iagree;

I was gutted he couldnt make my new years eve party but he was hung over from the night before

OK I'll give you that one as an original to blonde!

I locked the other thread so as to keep all the discussion in one place on this, just in case you were wondering!

No doubt he was an evil person, and should not of been allowed to continue as the president of the country, but was it up to the rest of the world to do this? How would we like to be attacked and invaded because we live under a free state, and our attackers think we should live under say Sharia Law, and then impose this upon us with no chance of change.

He did kill people ie. the Kurds, Iranians and traitors, but they were at war with the Kurds who believe that part of Northern Iraq should be a separate state called Kurdistan (Palestine/Israel all over again). They were also at war with the Iranians with the backing of the west, and as for traitors, we have executed enough of them in the past.

Torturing people is nothing new, do we all really think that Bush and Blair have told their agencies not to torture enemies of the state?

No sooner will the west pull out of Iraq and the civil war (which is already underway and has been for some time) will bring the country into anarchy and chaos, and a free for all country, were the gun will rule.

If elected rulers of countries can be tried for attrocities commited during their reign, what will we do with Mrs Thatcer with the Belgrano incident? We consider it an act of war the Argentinians certainly do not.

If the blueprint has been set, are we going to invade countries such as Pakistan, North Korea, China, Nigeria & Iran? They are a few that are similar, and do not think that they are in no way like Iraq, they are. Some are worse, some not as bad. But have we set the tone for the future? I think not. There was a lot to gain form the invasion and it was not righteous, political or moral; It was indeed oil.