Saddam Is Dead

[Pakboong]

Here’s what passes for “humor” at the Huffington Post, where hatred of George Bush has driven them completely off their rockers: WELL HUNG! Saddam Hung To Prove Bush is BETTER Hung... (Than His Dad).

(Photo of well-hung leader by www.wacotrib.com)

During his run as governor of Texas, Bush signed of on 155 death sentences.

[Pakboong]

Speaks volumes of what sort of murder and mayhem the lad was responsible for...

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html

Thats just the tip my friend. Stories of throwing acid in the faces of women and children because the husband / father was suspect. ( just one small example ) Torture and a seeming endless list of crimes and murder.

I can't belive the crap im reading here. Im thinking I am in the wrong forum group.

" loved by millions ( of this im sure ) put him back in power ", yeah, we should have just let him go.

He's dead...Good!

you know mate,

that is the answer isnt it, " WE SHOULD OF JUST LET HIM GO"

at the end of the day the iraq'y people would of sorted out there own problems and all the money bush has spent on this disaster of a war could of gone to fixing the problems in his own country.

he just did not learn anything from vietnam did he.?

trouble is,

he will retire from politics with a huge pension and there will be a trail of carnage left behind, american and iraq'y from his time in power.

well done george.

Classic post. Too true.

The biggest waste of public money in the history of the US.

If i was a US taxpayer i would be screaming blue murder.

A very nice little earner for the US military complex and their mates.....Haliburton et al

Imagine what could have done with the money wasted in Iraq in improving housing, education ,healthcare, etc in the US?

The US will be paying for this for years to come......

It is funny that the costs of this war have not been considered all that significant. Where is the money coming from? WW2 cost the US $300 billion which in today's dollars is roughly $4 trillion. this war has lasted longer and has cost more. (have to include black ops funding.)Nothing is rationed and nobody seems to care where the money is going. Wreaks of something very rotten indeed.

[rainman]

at the end of the day the iraq'y people would of sorted out there own problems and all the money bush has spent on this disaster of a war could of gone to fixing the problems in his own country.

he just did not learn anything from vietnam did he.?

he didn't go to vietnam, so how should he know anything about it

Well rainman - most killings are muslim on muslim I'm afraid. (snatch/grab/murder or usual ied/suicide bombers) Lets be honest if yanks left, it wouldn't make much difference and probably be much worse.

you're right, most killings are muslim on muslim. sunnis on shiites and shiites on sunnis. but that's a civil war. we didn't have that under saddam's rule. what i'm saying is he kept the country somewhat organized. so what is better?

1. saddam killing a few hundred people every now and then. the people fear him and they're quiet.

2. no saddam and a civil war with hundreds of dead every day.

because iraq only has/had those 2 choices. "democracy" will never work in iraq. what will happen in the end is the US pulling out and iraq being in a total civil war for decades. until the day when another dictator rises to power and starts executing people by the hundreds, which is when the civil war will stop. and debating about "if the yanks left.." is no use now, they shouldn't have been there in the first place.

[soi lurker]

at the end of the day the iraq'y people would of sorted out there own problems and all the money bush has spent on this disaster of a war could of gone to fixing the problems in his own country.

he just did not learn anything from vietnam did he.?

he didn't go to vietnam, so how should he know anything about it

Well rainman - most killings are muslim on muslim I'm afraid. (snatch/grab/murder or usual ied/suicide bombers) Lets be honest if yanks left, it wouldn't make much difference and probably be much worse.

you're right, most killings are muslim on muslim. sunnis on shiites and shiites on sunnis. but that's a civil war. we didn't have that under saddam's rule. what i'm saying is he kept the country somewhat organized. so what is better?

1. saddam killing a few hundred people every now and then. the people fear him and they're quiet.

2. no saddam and a civil war with hundreds of dead every day.

because iraq only has/had those 2 choices. "democracy" will never work in iraq. what will happen in the end is the US pulling out and iraq being in a total civil war for decades. until the day when another dictator rises to power and starts executing people by the hundreds, which is when the civil war will stop. and debating about "if the yanks left.." is no use now, they shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Couldn't agree more. This is what ive been saying. This is not a western country and will never be. Their way of life is completely different. No one in their right mind condones violence, but how will they ever be free of violence? Its a sad fact that they wont. America is not going to make a difference to democracy there. Iraq dont want it.And as a result, its a very sad fact that the civillian population are bearing the forefront of misery.

Edited January 2, 2007 by soi lurker

[Jet Gorgon]

I agree with you, rainman and soilurker, except I think the Iraqis want democracy, just on their own terms. Civil war will continue because of the tribal/religious/economic issues, just like Yugoslavia. I don't think the west has any biz there. Let them sort it out for themselves. The prob is potential for another Bosnia.

[soi lurker]

et al ? Not quite sure what you mean mate.

I think your missing my point here. I am not in dissagreement with you. Ofcourse im against a regime that is prone to have oppression, murder and mayhem. If you think a benevolent dictatorship is going to sort out problems and work there, you may be just as misguided as most other westeners. The way i see it, the country ran while saddam reigned, now its civil war. Going from a murderous dictatorship to a benevolent dictatorship will be almost impossible to find an inbetween. Take a look at the extreem groups and views in that country, and you may see why saddam's rule was so.

Et al refers to the people who have voiced a similar viewpoint as yours, a bit of latin thrown in so my 6 years of it at school wasn't a total waste.

Possibly we are of the same opinion, but when you mention that:

Work = a dictatorship that deals the harshest of punishments to keep a society running and avoiding a civil war and total collapse.

. . . then our opinions diverge. Dealing out the harshest of punishments mean killing people, can't get much harsher than that. There are so many examples of dictators that had their henchmen go around getting rid of 'subversives', just look at Saddams secret police, the Savak, Pinochet's thugs.

So, with the bombs now going off in Bangkok would you advocate a dictator being installed, civil rights abolished and all dissent quashed? Foreigners would either end up being chicked out or imprisoned.

I don't think so.

I do mate, democracy will never work and if installed, i imagine it would just be a front for something more sinister. In response to jet gorgon, I really think the good people of iraq would welcome change in the way of democracy. Its just that there are so many extreem factions that would not allow it. I wish happiness and prosperity to the good people of iraq for the future.....

[Jet Gorgon]

Too true, soilurker. The extremists will cause havoc. Their ideals are totally different. It is a pity for the many moderates who want to educate, live in peace and build an economy for all the people. War screws up everything. I used to trade emails with a fab Palestinian artist and one day, there was no response.

[kerryk]

at the end of the day the iraq'y people would of sorted out there own problems and all the money bush has spent on this disaster of a war could of gone to fixing the problems in his own country.

he just did not learn anything from vietnam did he.?

he didn't go to vietnam, so how should he know anything about it

Well rainman - most killings are muslim on muslim I'm afraid. (snatch/grab/murder or usual ied/suicide bombers) Lets be honest if yanks left, it wouldn't make much difference and probably be much worse.

you're right, most killings are muslim on muslim. sunnis on shiites and shiites on sunnis. but that's a civil war. we didn't have that under saddam's rule. what i'm saying is he kept the country somewhat organized. so what is better?

1. saddam killing a few hundred people every now and then. the people fear him and they're quiet.

2. no saddam and a civil war with hundreds of dead every day.

because iraq only has/had those 2 choices. "democracy" will never work in iraq. what will happen in the end is the US pulling out and iraq being in a total civil war for decades. until the day when another dictator rises to power and starts executing people by the hundreds, which is when the civil war will stop. and debating about "if the yanks left.." is no use now, they shouldn't have been there in the first place.

500,000 killed in Iraq Iran war.

Thousands of Kurd civilians gassed. 5000 in one city.

Hardly a few hundred people and those are just two instances there are a lot more I am sure you could look up if you wanted to be well informed

[aaaaaa]

what will happen in the end is the US pulling out and iraq being in a total civil war for decades....

and debating about "if the yanks left.." is no use now, they shouldn't have been there in the first place.

as for me - I wasn't trying to debate it, only commented on Brit's post.

coz for me it is clear enough what will happen - something as you said in this your post. also I agree that they shouldn't have been there - too true.

however yanks themselves DO argue this very matter, reflecting on all the losses and more to come:

Time to reflect as Iraq toll hits 3,000

Many were seasoned veterans, but most — 60 percent — never reached age 25.

Some died in fierce battles, trading bullets and rockets with a flesh-and-blood foe. But as the insurgency gained momentum in the past year, almost half of the servicemen and women fell to a faceless enemy... 20 percent classified as non-hostile casualties

and another article has much more Reflections and debates:

U.S. toll in Iraq lower than past wars

Americans may question this war for many reasons, but their doubts often find voice in the count of U.S. war deaths. An overwhelming majority — 84 percent — worry that the war is causing too many casualties, according to a September poll by the nonpartisan research group Public Agenda....

In the weeks after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, public backing was powerful. But opinion began to shift quickly once the Iraqi army was beaten, its leader was forced into hiding, and chemical, biological or nuclear weapons were not found.

• By late 2003, public support for the occupation began to seesaw around 50 percent, according to Richard Eichenberg, a political scientist at Tufts University.

• In September 2005, 55 percent of Americans favored stronger efforts to withdraw because of the losses, a Gallup poll found.

• Last October, 54 percent of registered voters believed the war wasn't worth the U.S. casualties or cost, a Hart-McInturff poll found. In November, voters reversed the congressional balance of power in an election viewed as a referendum on Iraq.

"When is it going to stop? We're losing a lot of youngsters," says former tanker Ed Collins, 82, of Hicksville, N.Y., who survived the assault on Normandy's beaches in World War II. "I went in when I was 18; that was young, too. But we fought for something. Now we have no idea who we're fighting for and what we're fighting for."

"If the public really believed that our war in Iraq now was about stopping aggression, stopping terrorism, then we would see a greater degree of tolerance for casualties," says Bruce Jentleson, a former policy planner in President Clinton's State Department who now teaches at Duke University.

America's young no longer feel personally threatened, either. The military draft is history. These days, mostly working-class teenagers volunteer to do the fighting.

Charles Moskos, a sociologist at Northwestern University, believes America has lost zeal for warfare because the children of its elite rarely serve.

... are Americans willing to hang in a tough fight anymore?

Some say Americans would still abide far more troop deaths, as in the world wars, if the cause were clear and dear. Others say today such an attitude would only return in the event of an invasion of the United States...

so, it looks like this time, as during Vietnam war, americans themselves already do doubt it very much :

WHAT they doing there at all or fighting for

WHY it has to continue and does it help anything at all

many other questions are being asked too !

so, Saddam is dead or not - WHAT does it change if at all? in May it will be 4 years since Iraq invasion - and it is not any better.

[Pakboong]

at the end of the day the iraq'y people would of sorted out there own problems and all the money bush has spent on this disaster of a war could of gone to fixing the problems in his own country.

he just did not learn anything from vietnam did he.?

he didn't go to vietnam, so how should he know anything about it

Well rainman - most killings are muslim on muslim I'm afraid. (snatch/grab/murder or usual ied/suicide bombers) Lets be honest if yanks left, it wouldn't make much difference and probably be much worse.

you're right, most killings are muslim on muslim. sunnis on shiites and shiites on sunnis. but that's a civil war. we didn't have that under saddam's rule. what i'm saying is he kept the country somewhat organized. so what is better?

1. saddam killing a few hundred people every now and then. the people fear him and they're quiet.

2. no saddam and a civil war with hundreds of dead every day.

because iraq only has/had those 2 choices. "democracy" will never work in iraq. what will happen in the end is the US pulling out and iraq being in a total civil war for decades. until the day when another dictator rises to power and starts executing people by the hundreds, which is when the civil war will stop. and debating about "if the yanks left.." is no use now, they shouldn't have been there in the first place.

500,000 killed in Iraq Iran war.

Thousands of Kurd civilians gassed. 5000 in one city.

Hardly a few hundred people and those are just two instances there are a lot more I am sure you could look up if you wanted to be well informed

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent - that is, a cyanide-based gas - which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.

I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/helms.html

[BlackRain]

The trial was a farce, and so was the execution. Saddam has become a martyr and a new hero.

The war is lost for the US anyhow, but he will be remembered as the defiant leader with his controversial past forgotten. He won.

[terry57]

The trial was a farce, and so was the execution. Saddam has become a martyr and a new hero.

The war is lost for the US anyhow, but he will be remembered as the defiant leader with his controversial past forgotten. He won.

no, he did not win anything mate,

he is dead , along with his sons and his country is a basket case desending into civil war.

he is only a marter to his supporters but thats normal is'nt it?

i suppose you could say that he is a winner in one way and that is because the U.S.A. are fighting an un winable war and 3000 american troups are dead.

so his supporters will say he won at something.

[rainman]

That's an interesting report. I've also read it at http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issue...1222halabja.htm

The only verified Kurdish civilian deaths from chemical weapons occurred in the Iraqi village of Halabja, near the Iran border, are several hundred people who died from gas poisoning in mid-March 1988. Iran overran the village and its small Iraqi garrison on 15 March 1988. The gassing took place on 16 March and onwards; who is then responsible for the deaths - Iran or Iraq - and how large was the death toll knowing the Iranian army was in Halabja but never reported any deaths by chemicals?

The best evidence to answer this is a 1990 report by the Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army War College. It concluded that Iran, not Iraq, was the culprit in Halabja. While the War College report acknowledges that Iraq used mustard gas during the Halabja hostilities, it notes that mustard gas is an incapacitating, rather than a killing agent, with a fatality rate of only 2%, so that it could not have killed the hundreds of known dead, much less the thousands of dead claimed by Human Rights Watch.

According to the War College reconstruction of events, Iran struck first taking control of the village. The Iraqis counter-attacked using mustard gas. The Iranians then attacked again, this time using a "blood agent" - cyanogens chloride or hydrogen cyanide - and re-took the town, which Iran then held for several months. Having control of the village and its grisly dead, Iran blamed the gas deaths on the Iraqis, and the allegations of Iraqi genocide took root via a credulous international press and, a little later, cynical promotion of the allegations for political purposes by the US state department and Senate.

[Boon Mee]

Reaction To Saddam's Hanging

[britmaveric]

The Sum of Two Evils Saddam's nastiest biological weapons may have been his sons Uday and Qusay. TIME takes an exclusive look inside their reign of terror

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...-454453,00.html

[Boon Mee]

A poignant obituary for a mass-murdering tyrant, based on the recollections of Saddam’s military nurse, brought to you by (who else?) the Associated Press.

Get out your hankies.

Military nurse recalls softer Saddam

"ST. LOUIS - A military nurse who cared for Saddam Hussein in jail said the deposed dictator saved bread crusts to feed birds and seldom complained to his captors, except when he had legitimate gripes.

Master Sgt. Robert Ellis cared for the former Iraqi dictator from January 2004 until August 2005 at Camp Cropper, the compound near Baghdad where Saddam and other “high value detainees” were held. Ellis, 56, an operating room nurse in the St. Louis suburb of St. Charles, said he was ordered to do whatever was needed to keep Saddam alive.

“That was my job: to keep him alive and healthy, so they could kill him at a later date,” he told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch for a story published Sunday. Saddam was executed Saturday.

Ellis checked on Saddam twice a day and wrote a daily report on Saddam’s physical and emotional condition. Saddam told Ellis that cigars and coffee kept his blood pressure down, and it seemed to work. Saddam would insist that Ellis smoke with him.

Ellis said Saddam did not complain much, and, when he did, his complaint was usually legitimate. “He had very good coping skills,” Ellis said.

Saddam shared with Ellis memories of happier times when his children were young. The former dictator described telling the youngsters bedtime stories and giving his daughter half a Tums tablet when she had a stomachache.

When he was allowed short visits outside, Saddam would feed the birds crusts of bread saved from his meals. He also watered a dusty plot of weeds. “He said he was a farmer when he was young and he never forgot where he came from,” Ellis said."

Makes you want to hurl, don't it...

[Boon Mee]

How about a thought experiment:

Imagine that Saddam had not been executed. Imagine that he had been sentenced to life in prison.

Now imagine that a group of pro-Saddam terrorists seizes an elementary school. They say they will kill all the students and teachers if Saddam is not released within 24 hours.

Should Saddam then be released? Or should several dozen innocent children and their teachers be killed?

Is it not better that we have guaranteed that it will never be necessary to make such a choice?

[farangsay]

That's an interesting report. I've also read it at http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issue...1222halabja.htm

The only verified Kurdish civilian deaths from chemical weapons occurred in the Iraqi village of Halabja, near the Iran border, are several hundred people who died from gas poisoning in mid-March 1988. Iran overran the village and its small Iraqi garrison on 15 March 1988. The gassing took place on 16 March and onwards; who is then responsible for the deaths - Iran or Iraq - and how large was the death toll knowing the Iranian army was in Halabja but never reported any deaths by chemicals?

The best evidence to answer this is a 1990 report by the Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army War College. It concluded that Iran, not Iraq, was the culprit in Halabja. While the War College report acknowledges that Iraq used mustard gas during the Halabja hostilities, it notes that mustard gas is an incapacitating, rather than a killing agent, with a fatality rate of only 2%, so that it could not have killed the hundreds of known dead, much less the thousands of dead claimed by Human Rights Watch.

According to the War College reconstruction of events, Iran struck first taking control of the village. The Iraqis counter-attacked using mustard gas. The Iranians then attacked again, this time using a "blood agent" - cyanogens chloride or hydrogen cyanide - and re-took the town, which Iran then held for several months. Having control of the village and its grisly dead, Iran blamed the gas deaths on the Iraqis, and the allegations of Iraqi genocide took root via a credulous international press and, a little later, cynical promotion of the allegations for political purposes by the US state department and Senate.

So , to coin a phrase :

"Nothing is real and nothing to get hung about".

Searching for the information/misinformation smilie.

Can't find it

<deleted>

[Boon Mee]

Look, the carrying out of this sentence was an act of justice. There's nobody on the planet of six billion people who tortured and killed more people than Saddam, and it's quite a distinction to be the preeminent monster of your time.

[aaaaaa]

oh, come on, BM ! you remind me too much of my wife who loves to imagine a lot of things as you, although her favorite word is "suppose" instead of "imagine".

very so often she bugs me with her riddles, like: "suppose, I die before you - how long you'll be single? I think you'll get new girl immidietly"

all her suppositions are usually imagined in such a way as to make it hard to answer or may be have no answers at all.

as for Sadam, let me ask you too:

imagine that time (20 years ago or so?) no any US envoys ever came to Iraq and shaked their hands with Saddam, never supplied him any weapons or mustard gas, never befriended him and made him as their main puppet in thei war/ political games against Iran....

perhaps Saddam would never have grown up so powerfull in the first place... and no any Iraqi children and old people would die hungry or due to the lack of medical treatments during long economic blockade imposed by US and Allies....

imagine Watergate scandal never taken place - secretly supplying weapons to their very enemies...

imagine that US never trained Osama and his bunch....

list can go on and on.... I am sure some people have even much better imagination then me !

Edited January 2, 2007 by aaaaaa

[Boon Mee]

Justice

Sic semper tyrannis.

Well. nothing can be said for Saddam except that he knew no better than the rule of the gun under which he had always lived. He was to make the most of the opportunities for crime open in the circumstances to anyone of vicious character like him.

[reasonstobecheerful]

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent - that is, a cyanide-based gas - which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.

I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/helms.html

There is certainly doubt involved Pakboong.

What is beyond doubt is that two MI6 agents were ordered by their superiors to cover up the incident at Halabja. They came clean to the Times many years later, I'm guessing I read it 4 years ago. I have just done a search but cannot find anything about it, but I can assure you that it was written at length in what is a serious and generally establishment newspaper.

Edited January 2, 2007 by reasonstobecheerful

[aaaaaa]

Look, the carrying out of this sentence was an act of justice. There's nobody on the planet of six billion people who tortured and killed more people than Saddam, and it's quite a distinction to be the preeminent monster of your time.

I don't know about torture, but killings - Pinochet has been responsible quite for a few hundreds if I remember correctly. he never been tried or something, huh?

others has tortured prisoners in Guantanamo jail and who know in how many of those other secret jails abroad... Bush even said that tortures were necessary or something... BTW I didn't follow it to the end - did finally US change that practice under pressure of world community?

yeah, numbers might be different of course.

[falux]

Speaks volumes of what sort of murder and mayhem the lad was responsible for...

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html

Thats just the tip my friend. Stories of throwing acid in the faces of women and children because the husband / father was suspect. ( just one small example ) Torture and a seeming endless list of crimes and murder.

I can't belive the crap im reading here. Im thinking I am in the wrong forum group.

" loved by millions ( of this im sure ) put him back in power ", yeah, we should have just let him go.

He's dead...Good!

you know mate,

that is the answer isnt it, " WE SHOULD OF JUST LET HIM GO"

at the end of the day the iraq'y people would of sorted out there own problems and all the money bush has spent on this disaster of a war could of gone to fixing the problems in his own country.

he just did not learn anything from vietnam did he.?

trouble is,

he will retire from politics with a huge pension and there will be a trail of carnage left behind, american and iraq'y from his time in power.

well done george.

God, I'm not a native english speaking person, but please make the people who replace 'have' by 'of' go away, please, it hurts my brain.

[Boon Mee]

I don't know about torture, but killings - Pinochet has been responsible quite for a few hundreds if I remember correctly. he never been tried or something, huh?

Pinochet escaped the hangman's noose - if it ever would have gone that far - he passed away a few months ago of natural causes.

[rainman]

Justice

Sic semper tyrannis.

Well. nothing can be said for Saddam except that he knew no better than the rule of the gun under which he had always lived.

Maybe the "rule of the gun" was the only way to keep Iraq stable and secure. Look at the civil war we have now with "democracy".

[Boon Mee]

Justice

Sic semper tyrannis.

Well. nothing can be said for Saddam except that he knew no better than the rule of the gun under which he had always lived.

Maybe the "rule of the gun" was the only way to keep Iraq stable and secure. Look at the civil war we have now with "democracy".

That's why 'they' are looking seriously at another sort of ME strongman in the same vein as the King of Jordan and the chinless wonder in Syria. Just to keep the lid on so to speak.

On a further note, even Pravda is jumping on the bandwagon with this article on "Saddam Hussein thrown in the garbage of history"

[Aujuba]

Like many other people I don't see how this is related to Thailand. Please close this thread unless you are going to allow me to post a thread about President Ford. Stop the hypocracy. Stop allowing westerners to exploit the boards. In fact all moderators should be Thais as this board is running under Thai law. Do the non-Thais have work permits?

[NovaBlue05]

Like many other people I don't see how this is related to Thailand. Please close this thread unless you are going to allow me to post a thread about President Ford. Stop the hypocracy. Stop allowing westerners to exploit the boards. In fact all moderators should be Thais as this board is running under Thai law. Do the non-Thais have work permits?

Well, the guy is dead cuz he had a rope Thai'ed round his neck. The death by natural causes of a 93 year old doesn't quite measure as high on the drama index anyway.

[Aujuba]

Are you suggesting that this relates to Thai soap-on-rope?

All I am saying is that there's no logic to what they allow on this board. They close threads that are not related to Thailand which people are interested in and then allow threads which are not related to Thailand stay. I have even seen a thread about Malaysian politics closed? hel_l, Thailand could be at war with Malaysian in the near future.