Skip to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Thailand News and Discussion Forum | ASEANNOW

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

Saddam Has Killed Fewer Iraqis Than Bush...

Featured Replies

  • Replies 40
  • Views 417
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Saddam was a Despot and a Tyrrant, but I do not think he was that much of a threat to the free World. Bush is a Despot and a Tyrrant and he IS a threat to the peace of the World.

On the face of it Saddam had more right to march into Washington, than Bush had to march into Bahgdad. Weapons of mass destruction? Chemicals? Big Bombs? Naplam? Whose definately got them. And who has already used them on innocent men, women and children. No folks; there is definately something wrong with this world we live in.

There was less outrage and condemnation by the do-gooders at the destruction of the twin towers, than there was at the beating of some prisoners to try and find out when the next one will be. If we had tortured a few properly we might have stopped the Bali bombings or at least known where they were aiming. And we are all pretty sure that THAILAND is next.

Just desserts for old Saddam - however I'd simply put a bullet in his head then waste everyones time w/trial!! :o

GWB - he's no more a tyrant/despot than Mother Theresa. :D

PS. Just received a text alert - Saddam got in a shoving match w/the guards taking him back to his cell. I guess reality is finally setting in. :D

GWB was democratically elected (unless you're Michael Moore that is)

Saddam was not.

I find the statement that GWB has killed more Iraqis than Saddam an utter nonsense.

  • Author
GWB was democratically elected (unless you're Michael Moore that is)

Saddam was not.

I find the statement that GWB has killed more Iraqis than Saddam an utter nonsense.

Link to GW Bush being elected ? :o

Not it's not nonsense. How 100,000 dead Iraqis sound to you ? collateral damage ?

Keep watching Faux News, the sky is blue and it's a beautiful day outside :D

GWB was democratically elected (unless you're Michael Moore that is)

Saddam was not.

I find the statement that GWB has killed more Iraqis than Saddam an utter nonsense.

Link to GW Bush being elected ? :o

Not it's not nonsense. How 100,000 dead Iraqis sound to you ? collateral damage ?

Keep watching Faux News, the sky is blue and it's a beautiful day outside :D

Butterfy - google mate, its far easier than posting nonsense:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/midd...cal_warfare.stm

He's not on trial for War Crimes or Weapons of mass Destruction, but for domestic issues.

If he pleads that under the Law that applied at the time he had Presidential immunity, then he has a Case.

Whilst Iraqi law has now changed to eliminate Executive immunity, grandfathering new Laws is not usually applied by a Court.

There seem to be a lot of dead bodies flying around.

Anyone counting the first Gulf war, the invasion of Kuwait, slaughtering of Kurds and Shiites and the Iraqis who lost their lives on the killing fields of Iran/Iraq war.

Bush can't be responsible for them all - can he?

He's not on trial for War Crimes or Weapons of mass Destruction, but for domestic issues.

If he pleads that under the Law that applied at the time he had Presidential immunity, then he has a Case.

Whilst Iraqi law has now changed to eliminate Executive immunity, grandfathering new Laws is not usually applied by a Court.

Moog - he's a goner and we all know it and I think he's beginning to realize his time on earth is growing short. :o

Butterfly, I would rely on more than Michael Moore et al for your political standpoint. Do you have a decent source for your 100,000 Iraqis killed by GWB??

No, I seriously doubt you do. You sound like another bandwagon jumper, firing off the same old tired rhetoric. My advice to you is to try growing up and developing a political awareness for yourself.

'We want to eat him alive," said Salimah Majeed Al-Haidari, 60, who spent more than four years in detention, then waited 17 more to learn that her husband and two sons, hauled off by security officers, had been executed. ''We wish they would cut him to pieces and hand them out to us and families like us."

Saddam deserves the fate of the Nazis

By John Keegan

(Filed: 20/10/2005)

'I would know by what power I am called hither... and when I know [by]what lawful authority, I shall answer. Remember, I am your king, your lawful king, and what sins you bring upon your heads, and the judgment of God upon this land, think well upon it, I say, think well upon it, before you go further from one sin to a greater; therefore let me know by what lawful authority I am seated here, and I shall not be unwilling to answer. In the meantime I shall not betray my trust." - Charles I

"Who are you? I want to know who you are. What does this court want? I preserve my constitutional rights as the president of Iraq. I do not recognise the body that authorised you." - Saddam Hussein

To try a head of state always tests the legal ingenuity of a jurisdiction to the utmost. Everyday trials are conducted in the name of the state, the Republic in France, or its constituting power, the People in the United States, or its head, in Britain, the Crown. In almost any system, therefore, an accused head of state may refuse to acknowledge the authority of the court, as Charles I did before Parliament in 1649.

In the end, the court simply insisted that it had recognised its own jurisdiction and left the king to protest in vain. He was condemned to death on a Saturday and executed the following Tuesday.

Parliament was well advised to be peremptory. Delay would have given time for doubts to form, for rescue parties to be organised, for diplomacy to come into play. When the First French Republic guillotined Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, it provoked a war against France by a coalition of European monarchies. It did the parliamentarians no good in the end. Those who had voted for the king to be executed were condemned as regicides and many of them were executed when Charles II returned at the Restoration. Cromwell himself, already in his grave, was exhumed and exhibited on a public gallows. His skull survives somewhere today as a gruesome relic and a warning of the dangers of going to law against the sovereign.

Saddam Hussein cannot hope for such intervention. One of his many mistakes has been to alienate all his foreign and domestic friends. He now finds himself in the same kind of predicament as Marshal Pétain at the end of the Second World War, with the difference that Pétain was not accused of mass murder and had been elevated to the headship of state by vote of the Chamber of Deputies, not by coup d'état. Moreover, De Gaulle could not bring himself to confirm the death penalty on his old commanding officer, thus allowing the nonagenarian to serve his sentence in the prison island of the Île d'Yeu. Pétain died in captivity.

The outcome of Saddam's trial is impossible to predict, although Iraq still has the death penalty and the prosecution is demanding it. If putting on trial a reigning head of state causes difficulty, imposing the death penalty compounds it many times. Britain is now one of the majority of states that hold the death penalty to be unjustifiable, so threatening the paradox that although Britain is a party to the trial, it might find itself forced to dissent from the verdict. It would certainly not be able again to participate in a Nuremberg-style tribunal, since the judges there, who included several Britons, imposed dozens of death sentences, many of which were carried out.

An alternative to the trial Saddam is undergoing would be to send him to the International Criminal Court at the Hague, before which Slobodan Milosevic is standing trial. The difficulty there is that there is not yet any body of international law that embraces all the crimes of which Saddam will be accused. In a way, Saddam has a strong case, since he will be able to plead reason of state in many cases. That is to say, if and when accused of murder or cruelty against political opponents who raised rebellion against him, he will be able to counter-claim that, as head of state, he had a duty to maintain law and order and that if any deaths occurred they were regrettable secondary effects.

Only if the prosecution is able to demonstrate that deaths were inflicted without the justification of resistance or is able to show proof of the death of the demonstrably innocent or death through outright cruelty will Saddam lack the defence of duty of head of state.

In 1945, the Allies, confronted by the difficulty of trying Hitler, were forced in effect to make up a whole new body of law in order to prepare the Nuremberg Indictment. It was a great relief to them when news of his suicide came, since they were thereby saved from the difficulty of trying a legitimate head of state. It is probable that Hitler could have been condemned on ordinary criminal charges, but such was not the object of the Allies at the end of the agony of the Second World War. Ordinary criminal charges do not suit the situation in Iraq either.

Whatever legal quibbles are raised about the legality of this trial, and they will be many and loud, Saddam is unarguably a criminal. He achieved power by force and deceit. He maintained it by the same methods and he used the power he achieved to wage two wars of aggression against his neighbours - the war against Iran to realign the joint frontier by force and the 1990 invasion and annexation of Kuwait.

Both wars resulted in many deaths, particularly the Iran war, in which hundreds of thousands of young Iranians were killed. Both wars also led to the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis.

There has been no head of state like Saddam in the world since the death of Hitler, in his combination of tyranny of his own people, aggression against his neighbours and defiance of international order.

In that respect, he is a second Hitler and deserves the fate the Allies of 1945 had prepared for the Nazi dictator but were cheated of carrying out by his taking his own life. Academic international lawyers have always had their doubts about the strict legality of the Nuremberg process. Fortunately, it has always been accepted in popular opinion - the judgment of the man in the street - that Hitler's minions got what they deserved. The important thing now is to ensure that today's street returns the same verdict on Saddam.

© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2005. Terms & Conditions of reading.

Commercial information.  Privacy and Cookie Policy.

Iraq: Amnesty International to observe trial of Saddam Hussein

A three-person delegation of Amnesty International has arrived in Baghdad to observe the opening session of the trial of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and seven former Iraqi officials, due to take place on Wednesday, 19 October in Baghdad.

Amnesty International is attending and observing the trial in order to assess its fairness and to make clear the organisation's commitment to helping ensure that victims of human rights abuses gain access to justice, both for its own sake and as an important element in breaking the cycle of impunity that often facilitates gross human rights violations.

Amnesty International considers the trial as an important first step towards this end and towards bringing justice and reparation for victims of abuses committed during that time.

The organization is concerned that Saddam Hussein and his co-accused should receive a fair trial, one that satisfies international fair trial standards, both as a matter of principle and also because this trial may establish the pattern for further trials in the future of persons accused of perpetrating gross human rights abuses in Iraq in former years. Fair trials for alleged perpetrators are essential if victims of human rights abuses are truly to obtain justice.

Amnesty International is concerned also that Saddam Hussein and his co-accused, if convicted, should not be sentenced to death and executed.

For over three decades, Amnesty International documented massive and gross violations of human rights under the government of Saddam Hussein and called repeatedly on the international community to act. It is important that justice is delivered for thousands of victims of abuses and that this is done through fair trial proceedings. This has paramount importance for the future of human rights in the country.

For more information, please call Nicole Choueiry on +44 207 413 5511 or +44 7831 640 170

Public Document

****************************************

'We want to eat him alive," said Salimah Majeed Al-Haidari, 60, who spent more than four years in detention, then waited 17 more to learn that her husband and two sons, hauled off by security officers, had been executed. ''We wish they would cut him to pieces and hand them out to us and families like us."

did this turn into a pedophile thread????

:o:D:D

'We want to eat him alive," said Salimah Majeed Al-Haidari, 60, who spent more than four years in detention, then waited 17 more to learn that her husband and two sons, hauled off by security officers, had been executed. ''We wish they would cut him to pieces and hand them out to us and families like us."

did this turn into a pedophile thread????

:o:D:D

Believe you might be referring to cannibals as opposed to pedophiles, eh? :D

Saddam has killed at least 180.000 kurds (some figures state that this is how many he killed in the Fallujah massacre alone) and several others throughout his career. His ruthless campaigns against the kurds smack of attempts at genocide.

But there is still a problem with the court - IMO the US would not have him freed at this stage, too much is at stake. The pictures from the court room are delayed by 20-30 minutes before being sent to the public, in order to be able to edit out anything undesirable that might occur.

Most Iraqis, even the ones who want to chop up Saddam and throw him to the dogs (possibly the ones who have watched too many American B-movies with the classic 'it's ok to break all rules and throw the justice state to the dogs if somebody hurts my family' theme...?) question the credibility and and fairness of the court. The judge is a Kurd.

Iraq does not have a tradition of secular democracy, and ethnicity and family ties are very important.

Even if he is punished, which most people including myself will agree that he should be, does it help Iraq on the way towards democracy?

...does it  help Iraq on the way towards democracy?

The people of Iraq want 'closer'.

That's why they are glued to their television screens for the trial.

To answer your question Meadish, yes, it most certainly does help Iraq along the path to Democracy. The folks there will believe in something called "Rule of Law" that exists for all. :o

"Poison. That’s the word. “A lot of poison in Iraqi society built up over the years of Saddam’s rule, a poison in the body politic,” Coalition Provisional Authority chief Paul Bremer said in a recent televised interview. “And we’re going to have to deal with that. … It’s got to come out.”

Bremer’s right. Saddam’s Baath fascist regime not only poisoned Iraqi society, its cruelty embedded, en masse, the human emotional poisons of bitterness, distrust and constant fear.

Other toxins churn and sicken Iraq. Syria and Iran pump death into Iraqi streets, as they arm and finance Baath fascists and extremist militias. Al Qaeda, behind the mask of Ansar al Islam, adds another terrible venom.

The defeat of Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi militia crimps Iran’s attempt to ignite a proxy war in Iraq. Democracy — the antidote to Iraq’s, and for that matter, Iran’s systemic illness — frightens Iran’s theocratic dictators. Some day, Iran’s clerical and Syria’s secular tyrants will be held responsible for the destruction they have brought to their own people.

But Iraq must heal first"

Read the rest .

...does it  help Iraq on the way towards democracy?

The people of Iraq want 'closer'.

That's why they are glued to their television screens for the trial.

To answer your question Meadish, yes, it most certainly does help Iraq along the path to Democracy. The folks there will believe in something called "Rule of Law" that exists for all. :o

I agree. I think it helps the common people who were in constant fear to see that Saddam is human and not superhuman and that there is justice. I don't know maybe they will just see the trial as revenge. It will be the duty of the judges and lawyers during the court procedings to remind the people that it is not about revenge it is about justice. It's an opportunity to influence some people to think differently.

...does it  help Iraq on the way towards democracy?

The people of Iraq want 'closer'.

That's why they are glued to their television screens for the trial.

To answer your question Meadish, yes, it most certainly does help Iraq along the path to Democracy.  The folks there will believe in something called "Rule of Law" that exists for all. :o

Will they? Even considering the trial is set up by an occupational army that the vast majority of Iraqis do not appear to trust? I am not so sure.

Historically, successful democracy usually comes as part of a mass movement (of course supported by intellectuals) by the people, not as a system imposed from the outside by an occupational army. There are exceptions, of course, but the general trend is pretty obvious.

"Poison. That’s the word. “A lot of poison in Iraqi society built up over the years of Saddam’s rule, a poison in the body politic,” Coalition Provisional Authority chief Paul Bremer said in a recent televised interview. “And we’re going to have to deal with that. … It’s got to come out.”

Bremer’s right. Saddam’s Baath fascist regime not only poisoned Iraqi society, its cruelty embedded, en masse, the human emotional poisons of bitterness, distrust and constant fear.

Other toxins churn and sicken Iraq. Syria and Iran pump death into Iraqi streets, as they arm and finance Baath fascists and extremist militias. Al Qaeda, behind the mask of Ansar al Islam, adds another terrible venom.

The defeat of Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi militia crimps Iran’s attempt to ignite a proxy war in Iraq. Democracy — the antidote to Iraq’s, and for that matter, Iran’s systemic illness — frightens Iran’s theocratic dictators. Some day, Iran’s clerical and Syria’s secular tyrants will be held responsible for the destruction they have brought to their own people.

But Iraq must heal first"

Read the rest .

"Even considering the trial is set up by an occupational army that the vast majority of Iraqis do not appear to trust?"

What, pray tell, is the basis for this outlandish statement?

The folks just had a referendum to their constitution with over 60% participation which is terrific! They are quite pleased to have the "Occupational Army!" around :D

Have no fear, we'll be outa there ASAP... :D

Meadish - you gotta get your 'news' from other than the Guardian etc. We've already won the Hearts/Minds but the left-wing press won't admit it... :o

Historically, successful democracy usually comes as part of a mass movement (of course supported by intellectuals) by the people, not as a system imposed from the outside by an occupational army. There are exceptions, of course, but the general trend is pretty obvious.

It's an opportunity for Iraq's religious leaders to dispell a western viewpoint of them living 700 years in the past. It's a fork in the road for Iraq's ayatollahs. It will be telling which path they choose for the people. I am hoping that the top religious leaders of Iraq and Islam in general are not zealots or even true believers but more like religious administrators who use religion to help the common people to cope with life. Hopefully some of them are conservative intellectuals and not true believers. If they are administraors or intellectuals there is a chance the ayatollahs will choose the road away from greater conflict and towards prosperity and maybe eventually democracy.

Even if he is punished, which most people including myself will agree that he should be, does it  help Iraq on the way towards democracy?

At this point, it's about more than just democracy. It's about instituting a government with a system of checks and balances, with executive, legislative and judicial sections, each with their own separate powers and responsibilities.

In Saddam's day, he was the executive, legislative and judicial branch, all rolled up into one big murderous nutcase. Mugabi and other current tyrants of this same ilk are no different. The law of the land was/is their law.

This trial and all the other recent successes, such as elections, constitutional voting, forming a parliament, etc., are moves toward long term stability and chances for the Iraqi people to prosper once again.

You have to keep in mind that before the 25 years of Saddam's warlord rule, constant regional aggression, etc., Iraq was a relatively stable country, with a prosperous middle class, and a strong educational system. {The same could be said for pre-ayatollah Iran.} The people deserve another shot at this level of prosperity.

I hope the trial is fair, without misconduct, and that everyone in the world will accept the court's decision at the outcome.

The people of Iraq want 'closer'.

Closure perhaps. Doubt if they want to get any closer to the old fiend.

  • Author
Saddam has killed at least 180.000 kurds (some figures state that this is how many he killed in the Fallujah massacre alone) and several others throughout his career. His ruthless campaigns against the kurds smack of attempts at genocide.

But there is still a problem with the court - IMO the US would not have him freed at this stage, too much is at stake. The pictures from the court room are delayed by 20-30 minutes before being sent to the public, in order to be able to edit out anything undesirable that might occur.

Most Iraqis, even the ones who want to chop up Saddam and throw him to the dogs (possibly the ones who have watched too many American B-movies with the classic 'it's ok to break all rules and throw the justice state to the dogs if somebody hurts my family' theme...?) question the credibility and and fairness of the court. The judge is a Kurd.

Iraq does not have a tradition of secular democracy, and ethnicity and family ties are very important.

Even if he is punished, which most people including myself will agree that he should be, does it  help Iraq on the way towards democracy?

Maybe his lawyer could have him released because he is not the real Saddam, as evidence of his DNA have been obtained illegally. Wouldn't it be wonderdul ? a real system of checks and balances.

Not it's not nonsense. How 100,000 dead Iraqis sound to you ? collateral damage ?

Keep watching Faux News, the sky is blue and it's a beautiful day outside  :o

Who's watching "Faux News" with rose coloured glasses on ?

According to Iraqi Body Count.org, there have been an estimated 26-30,000 Iraqi civilians killed so far (not 100,000), and that includes those killed by other Iraqi's !

During the Iran-Iraq war, there were an estimated ONE MILLION (military) casualties (600,000 Iranians, 400,000 Iraqis). There was an estimated 100,000 Iranians killed by Iraqi's use of Chemical and Biological weapons alone (not including civilian casualties in the areas around where the weapons were used).

Another site estimates the total casualties from that war at 1-2 MILLION, including civilians, and the (estimated) 100,000 (Iraqi) Kurds killed by Saddam's army.

In 1988, shortly after the Iran-Iraq war ended, Saddam's forces used nerve gas (Sarin) on Kurdish villages in Nothern Iraq, including Birjinni and Halabja. Well over 5,000 Kurds died in those attacks alone.

So, lets see. 26-30,000 for "Bush" (and the 30+ other nations in the "coalition") compared to well over 1,000,000 for Saddam.

During the Iran-Iraq war, there were an estimated ONE MILLION (military) casualties (600,000 Iranians, 400,000 Iraqis). There was an estimated 100,000 Iranians killed by Iraqi's use of Chemical and Biological weapons alone (not including civilian casualties in the areas around where the weapons were used).

Another site estimates the total casualties from that war at 1-2 MILLION, including civilians, and the (estimated) 100,000 (Iraqi) Kurds killed by Saddam's army.

In 1988, shortly after the Iran-Iraq war ended, Saddam's forces used nerve gas (Sarin) on Kurdish villages in Nothern Iraq, including Birjinni and Halabja. Well over 5,000 Kurds died in those attacks alone.

Let's rewind back to the senate hearings of 1992 and 1994, where it was proven that the US consciously provided Iraq with chemical and biological materials used to make weapons during the Iran-Iraq conflict, and even up until as late as 1992... AFTER it was publicly known that Saddam had gassed Kurds to death.

During the Iran-Iraq war, there were an estimated ONE MILLION (military) casualties (600,000 Iranians, 400,000 Iraqis). There was an estimated 100,000 Iranians killed by Iraqi's use of Chemical and Biological weapons alone (not including civilian casualties in the areas around where the weapons were used).

Another site estimates the total casualties from that war at 1-2 MILLION, including civilians, and the (estimated) 100,000 (Iraqi) Kurds killed by Saddam's army.

In 1988, shortly after the Iran-Iraq war ended, Saddam's forces used nerve gas (Sarin) on Kurdish villages in Nothern Iraq, including Birjinni and Halabja. Well over 5,000 Kurds died in those attacks alone.

Let's rewind back to the senate hearings of 1992 and 1994, where it was proven that the US consciously provided Iraq with chemical and biological materials used to make weapons during the Iran-Iraq conflict, and even up until as late as 1992... AFTER it was publicly known that Saddam had gassed Kurds to death.

Got a link for this one? This sounds too good to be true.

Create an account or sign in to comment

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.

Account

Navigation

Search

Search

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.