About Sadam Hussein, terrorism & religion

Vilje

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
409
As this subject was brought up in the "bombs in London" - thread, I wanted to start a discussion on it.
Some people thinks it is illegal to put Sadam on trial for warcrimes, others thinks it is justified.


I for one, did not like the way USA and it's allies chose to approach the threat from Sadam.
That be ignoring UN's decision on waiting and gather more info first, and act on their own.

When they finally got an hold of Sadam, they charged him with warcrimes. Some people
think this is illegal because they caught him during wartime, and that he is therefore protected by the
Geneve convention.




However, Sadam has during his period as dictator ( much of this happened during peace-time ) :


* Bombed a town with a new type of nervegas to test it on people, this
incident killed more than 5000 people/50 000 inhabitants.

* Kept several thousands of political prisoners

- In total: 300 000 has been killed or gone 'missing', and 4000 villages
destroyed during his regime.


and there is more to it.. info can be found here:


http://www.mk.gov.lv/index.php/en/?id=1360


Is it illegal to put Sadam on trial for what he has done? And if so, do you think it is still justified to do so?



I would like this thread to be about the Sadam case, about terrorism in general, and about how susceptible we are to religion.
I would like for people to freely speak their minds, and with as little flaming as possible. Remember, one view is as good as another.


Please discuss
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
21,652
All of that is true, but of course Saddam didn't do this by himself, you can only wage war on parts of your society you don't like with the backing of the powerful majority.
They turned a blind eye to his actions because his tyrannical rule kept a lid on chaos, prosecute him of course, but you still have the vacuum that is left by removing him.

The trial is going to be sooo interesting, he has the dirt on a lot of powerful people, I can only guess they are going to stifle the truth.

The cosy relationship between Saddam and the west over the years is well documented and widely known.
 

Ctuchik

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
10,459
Job said:
The cosy relationship between Saddam and the west over the years is well documented and widely known.


yep.. and especially the relationship between saddam and USA in the eighties. when USA SOLD all of the fking WMD's TO HIM!


they sold all kind of wierdo shit to saddam when he were at war with Iran.

both cemical AND biological shit. think they even GAVE him the formula for mustard gas or whatever its called in english..

just that USA is trying its best to forget that, that never happend.
 

Sissyfoo

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
2,814
I always wondered if there would be another 'Lee Harvey Oswald' incident but I suppose it would look far too suspicious if he got bumped off before ratting on all his old friends on Capitol Hill.
 

Ctuchik

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
10,459
Vilje said:
Is it illegal to put Sadam on trial for what he has done? And if so, do you think it is still justified to do so?


it doesent really matter what he did.. the only thing that DOES matter is that he IS a prisoner of war and thus DO have protection from the geneva convention.

ignoring that, no matter WHAT the reason may be, would be to kick the most important law we got during war times in the nuts..

yes i want justice just as bad as everyone else, but i want it the RIGHT way. i dont want some overly cleaver lawman find a whole in there somwhere and somehow gets him free because we didnt charge him right... THAT would be bad.
 

Thadius

Part of the furniture
Joined
Sep 5, 2004
Messages
8,824
Balls to human rights imo

You think they gave Ken Bigley human rights? Terrorist bombers in London let the people have thier rights? Saddam Hussain gave his people human rights?

Did he balls. Let him rot in hell for all I care and let him get whats coming to him
 

Gazon

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Aug 4, 2004
Messages
655
Retorical Q: If Saddam was such a huge threat to his own people and the world then WHY did US remove him from power only decades after he pulled all that oppression and genocide shit? He has been in power since the sixties. Israel destroyed Iraq's first nuclear reactor (bought from the French) in 1981. That's more then 20 years ago. Were his weapons programs worth going to war over then? No.

Where was the US when Saddam brutally struck down the Kurd uprising in the North of Iraq after the 1st Gulf war ended? They bloody GAVE HIM PERMISSION to fly his helicopters with troops over there to stomp it out.

Saddam got to stay in power as long as he served a purpose (keeping Iraq stable) and was contained. Just like before, when the US backed him to counter Iran. After the 1st Gulf war, the US was hoping his regime would erode and colapse by itself and they wouldn't have to get involved too much.

But Saddam held on to power after 1991.

So then the US calculated the containment operation out of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (no fly zone, large US presence) was costing them more money then taking him out with a war and controlling and stabilising the region and the flow of oil themselves (with an injection of good old sedating capitalism).

A stable middle eastern region is key for the US economy and the world. We need that oil to keep flowing and the prices to be low. Nothing is worth risking that.

Add to that a son that needed to "finish the job" his father wisely didn't.

= Iraq invasion.

Saddam was not relevant to global terrorism, period. There were other reasons for the invasion.
But now the war in Iraq is the a choice battlefield for terrorists from 4 corners of the globe to hit the vulnerable foreign troops.
On top of that, many Arabs in the region see the invasion and occupation of Iraq as a humiliation to the Middle East. Some of them are even angry enough now to join the ranks of the extremists and commit acts of terrorism in revenge.

So, I ask you, was it justified to invade? Probably.
Was it smart to invade like this? No.
Did it help to fight terrorism? Most definitely not.
 

Raven

Happy Shopper Ray Mears
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
44,617
I think the US do a lot of things that arent right at the time, then several years later back track, maybe its the change in leadership, maybe they are just really bad at reading the political future. Or maybe its all down to money and Oil in this case. While i do agree that people like Saddam should be removed, they shouldnt be helped into power in the first place.

I dont like the way the UK does whatever America wants either, yes America is a good trade ally and we have always had a strong relationship with them (for the last hundred years anyway) we should not become a tool for them.

America set out to "crush terorism wherever it may be found" but have done a really half arsed job of it, they cant pick and chose the organisations they bring down, which imo they have been doing. There are other places in the world that have regimes as bad as Saddams, but are ignored because there is no gain to be made by the US.

They arent a "world police" more like a world Mercenary going to whoever makes them the most money.
 

old.Whoodoo

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
3,646
I think Sadam should be held accountable for his actions, however, what gets me is theres a dozen other countries in the world with people doing the same shit, killing natives, striiping the human rights of their people, and yet the yanks (and us, their bed partners!) do fuck all about it.... one word here:


Oil...Iraq has it, the rest dont, so Bush says fuck em.
 

Ballard

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
1,711
Vilje said:
When they finally got an hold of Sadam, they charged him with warcrimes. Some people
think this is illegal because they caught him during wartime, and that he is therefore protected by the
Geneve convention.

War leaders actions are NOT protected by geneva convention during wartime. The geneva convention in its original form was a guideline for dealing with POW's. Over the years it has been revisied many times. War time actions certainly can be judged and ruled on by the convention. I.e. Mistreating POW's during and after wartime is still a cornerstone of it. Any abuse of non combatants likewise can also fall under its (or related treaties) jurisdiction.
 

Vilje

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
409
Ballard said:
War leaders actions are NOT protected by geneva convention during wartime. The geneva convention in its original form was a guideline for dealing with POW's. Over the years it has been revisied many times. War time actions certainly can be judged and ruled on by the convention. I.e. Mistreating POW's during and after wartime is still a cornerstone of it. Any abuse of non combatants likewise can also fall under its (or related treaties) jurisdiction.


Ah, I see. So Saddam can be legally progressed also for the actions he did while they were at war?

--------------------------

Oh yes, and in my first post note that Sadam = Saddam ;)

--------------------------

What I found really strange with the Saddam case was that at once he was caught, I heard nothing more about him. And it has been a while now!

Anyone know when he is to stand trial? And what specific crimes he is standing trial for?

This was the last I saw/heard of him:
 

Attachments

  • saddam-caught.jpg
    saddam-caught.jpg
    17.3 KB · Views: 9

Jaem-

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
2,498
I know some may say I'm a clueless prat, but in my opinion there shouldn't be any religions, my reason is that they are the main cause of most wars not just recently, but years and years back, but then again if there was no religions, people would fight over something else they believe strongly in, just the way people are. :(

With all this Saddam stuff etc, I'm trying to keep a passive view, not get involved with discussions about it, just load of nonsence tbh.
 

Lakashnik

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Sep 11, 2004
Messages
725
his trial has started i think. there was a news thingy about it few weeks ago. was 1st i had heard anything about it since they captured him.
there was also interview wit the 2soldiers who guarded him on US TV they went on about how he was very polite and they chatted about stuff and had a game of chess thru his lil door gap thing. he also likes captain crunch cereal or summat like that.
tbh doesnt really sound like jail. think he had proper cooked meals and TV to.
oh wait it does sound like jail. but will keep my opinion of them for another thread.
 

Chronictank

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Messages
10,133
Ballard said:
War leaders actions are NOT protected by geneva convention during wartime. The geneva convention in its original form was a guideline for dealing with POW's. Over the years it has been revisied many times. War time actions certainly can be judged and ruled on by the convention. I.e. Mistreating POW's during and after wartime is still a cornerstone of it. Any abuse of non combatants likewise can also fall under its (or related treaties) jurisdiction.
dont see donalad rumsfeld being held accountable for his actions...


fromt he videos they show it looks like Sadaam has been drugged up to next week at the time, im no expert but even i know when someone is high on something.
Maybe hes too powerful even in prison so needs to be sedated o_O
 

Ballard

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
1,711
Chronictank said:
dont see donalad rumsfeld being held accountable for his actions...


fromt he videos they show it looks like Sadaam has been drugged up to next week at the time, im no expert but even i know when someone is high on something.
Maybe hes too powerful even in prison so needs to be sedated o_O


Yep you are damn right if you are referring to a certain american prison that violates many prisoners rights :( But just because you dont bring one criminal to justice doesnt mean another shouldnt be either
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom