Deathboy-evil Posted November 6, 2006 Report Posted November 6, 2006 http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/TopStorie...showbyline=True
Incomplete Posted November 6, 2006 Report Posted November 6, 2006 He should have all his toes and fingers cut off, shoot his knees then smash his knees with a sledge hammer set on fire and then MAYBE he should be hung
Dav Posted November 6, 2006 Report Posted November 6, 2006 no surpriseses really. was reading a lot about this on BBC news yesterday. I find it amusing that there was a hidden article about protestors swearing bloody revengs in tikrit and areas of bahgdad when the majopr reports concentrate on the people celebrating. He has to go therough the appeals process and i think there will be a lot of emphisis in the legality of the court and the US/UK invasion which will be interesting to see. Doubt it will change anything though. I dont think this news will take any heat off of the major issue of the origonal invasion however much poli!@#$%^&*ions hope it will.
The Apache Posted November 6, 2006 Report Posted November 6, 2006 no matter what happens, there is always going to be violene. those who support saddam are going to protest, suicide bomb or do whatever it takes to tell the people that sentencing saddam to death was wrong. i'm glad he is being sentenced to death to be honest. but he has a month to appeal? lol, he shouldn't be allowed to appeal since the evidence agaisnt him is so overwhelming and true. but as the article from BBC said, his appeal will probably be rejected in a mere few weeks. but some of the comments made by some iraqis is true - i think the supporters of saddam hussein will make things worse; more bombings, killings and such. but if that happens, so be it - hussein was a bad man who murdered innocent people, even some of his own family. let him die, and let him die quickly.
AceSpades Posted November 6, 2006 Report Posted November 6, 2006 I've heard that he asked to be killed by firing squad. The request was turned down.
Aileron Posted November 6, 2006 Report Posted November 6, 2006 I think the appeal will be under the grounds that Saddam thinks he is above any and all legal systems.
Deathboy-evil Posted November 6, 2006 Author Report Posted November 6, 2006 I've heard that he asked to be killed by firing squad. The request was turned down. LOL I think the appeal will be under the grounds that Saddam thinks he is above any and all legal systems. most likely. I heard some people including some of his family members were against him. and Incomplete, I think your evil, lol, that description sounds really terrifying for torturing someone. Even for all the innocent people he killed, all the families which were shattered. I'd just say kill him. No need to sink down to his level.
AstroProdigy Posted November 7, 2006 Report Posted November 7, 2006 Two days before the midterm elections...
Dav Posted November 7, 2006 Report Posted November 7, 2006 I've heard that he asked to be killed by firing squad. The request was turned down. yeah i heard this as well I think the appeal will be under the grounds that Saddam thinks he is above any and all legal systems. Not sure about that, he certainly cant demonstrate that at the moment. I think he will claim the court is illigal and he is still the president.
AceSpades Posted November 8, 2006 Report Posted November 8, 2006 Just like he did when the trial began. He refused to recognise the court saying that he was still the president of Iraq.
Deathboy-evil Posted November 9, 2006 Author Report Posted November 9, 2006 I heard he's got 2 months appeal now.. wtf..
Aileron Posted November 9, 2006 Report Posted November 9, 2006 Incomplete isn't that sadistic. I personally say multiple homicides should be electrocuted then resuscitated once for every person he killed. If Saddam killed millions, then he should be killed an rescutated a million times.
AstroProdigy Posted November 10, 2006 Report Posted November 10, 2006 That wouldn't accomplish anything except for revenge purposes.
»Swift Posted November 10, 2006 Report Posted November 10, 2006 Sad to say, unlike us SOLDIERS one thing I may agree on is he deserves it... but I sure as !@#$%^&* don't devise ways to kill people.
PoLiX Posted November 10, 2006 Report Posted November 10, 2006 Just like he did when the trial began. He refused to recognise the court saying that he was still the president of Iraq. Well, in all honesty, to a lot of Iraq he still is. And that is where the problem lies, and once he is dead, will be the biggest problem we face.
Aileron Posted November 10, 2006 Report Posted November 10, 2006 No, Hussein ruled by force and by giving favors to elites. If non-elites respected his rule it was only because of the military firepower behind it. Now it happens that we are the ones with the military firepower, so we now have Hussein's claim to leadership. The current fighting is a cultural thing in Iraq. The best way to compaire how this works is how organized crime works. You have mob bosses, who controll lesser !@#$%^&*ociates, who in turn have limited controll over various street gangs. The ranks of the mob bosses is controlled like a traditional beurocracy, but the power and territory the gangs hold is determined by their ability to engage in violence with their rivals. Generally, the mob bosses can't keep the gang members from killing each other, but at the same time the gangs are expected to leave the mob bosses alone and engage only each other. This development is an ancient tradition based on Iraq's geography. While the stereotypical view of the Middle East is a desert, most of Iraq is infact rich farmland. Infact, as far as we can tell this area was the first instance of large scale farming. They can do this by irrigating water from the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. This is similar to Egypt, except in Iraq the rivers don't flood annually. In order to get the water to the fields centrally managed canals are needed. Combine this with other factors such as half a million years worth of soil degragation, and basically you have a society that historically in order to feed itself needed the central government to be intact in order to manage the agriculture. Thus, most disputes worth killing people over was settled with small scale fighting between tribes, each having an unwritten rule so as not to bring the greater government into the fight. The exception to "don't go after the government" rule was foreigners whose wealth did not come from agriculture and thus did not care about managing it as much. Ofcourse, Iraq has reached its second-agricultural revolution by now, so this whole cultural quirck is obsolete. However, tens of thousands of years of tradition are not forgotten easily. The problem here is that when we saw Sunnis and Shi'ites fighting each other we thought immeadiately "destablization". In reality this is how Iraqis restabilize. The tribes now realize that the Baathists are truly gone and are determining now which tribes control which turf. What we should do is just set a few ground rules for allowed targets of this fighting: 1) No foreigners2) No members of the democratic government3) No women4) No children Attacking members of one of these groups results in the tribe being considered enemies of the state as a whole, and if tribe A uses one of the four groups to attack tribe B, then tribe B is allowed to attack those members of tribe A so far as the initial violation was.
NBVegita Posted November 13, 2006 Report Posted November 13, 2006 Revenge usually makes people feel better. And as I have no reason to torture him, think of the millions of people who lost friends and family to them. I bet they sure as !@#$%^&* would want him to feel their pain. If someone torured and killed my fiance, you bet your !@#$%^&* I'd want to make their death as painful as possible. It doesn't bring them back, but making him feel even an ounce of suffering that those people felt, that would be more justice than revenge.
Aileron Posted November 15, 2006 Report Posted November 15, 2006 Its actually a misconception that cons!@#$%^&*utional bans against torture were put in place because "No matter what somebody's crimes are, no one deserves torture." Believe me when I say that there are quite a few people in this world that do indeed do things heinous enough that they deserve it. The reasons why torture is forbidden are: 1) It's a favorite tool used by tyrants to put fear into the populace by publically torturing dissidents.2) It often results in innocent people confessing falsely. Torture doesn't extract the truth, torture extracts what the torterer wants to hear. As for proof of my statement, all one has to do is examine the context in the Bill of Rights. Banning weapons, stationing troops in homes, and suprise inspections are common tyrannical practices and are all banned by the cons!@#$%^&*ution to prevent tyranny from developing. As for ex-tyrants themselves, there is no humanist reason why ex-tyrants cannot be treated the way in which they have treated others save for the fact that laws and laws upon laws must apply to everyone. To this I say that Hussein deserves worse than he's getting, though the Iraqis shouldn't punish him as he deserves because it sets a bad legal precedent.
AstroProdigy Posted November 15, 2006 Report Posted November 15, 2006 I think hating Saddam brought Shiites and Kurds together. I wonder what happens when he's dead. I think the death penalty itself should only be used on the worst crimes. To torture him would be to make him a martyr in the eyes of Sunnis and it doesn't just set a bad legal precedent. It sets a bad moral precedent.
MillenniumMan Posted November 20, 2006 Report Posted November 20, 2006 He should have all his toes and fingers cut off, shoot his knees then smash his knees with a sledge hammer set on fire and then MAYBE he should be hung I devised a seven day TAK plan for those that truly have no salvation Day 1: While awake, surgical removal of the scrotum will take place (surgical as in using a set of dull car keys) This will be done by a jewish surgeon wearing a yamaka(sp?) to indicate such. While the subject is still concious, bring in a very starved german sheppard. Face the subjects head towards the puppy and toss the scrotum towards the dog for him to see. Then, without care for pain or shock, while the doctor is wearing gloves, rip the testicles out as slowly as possible until they snap off. Then toss the testicle tissue to the dog. Finally, the penis must be carefuly "RIPPED OFF" and also fed to the dog. If the subject is still concious, cauterize the gaping hole left. If not, administer a stimulant then proceed. Day two: Now that the dog has been well fed, lead it back in and proceed to let it have its way with the !@#$%^&*less dictator or subject, over and over again. Day three: By now, the subjects parts have been digested and are ready for excretion. Allow several "walkies" on the subjects face ofver the course of the day. Day four: Start stripping the flesh of the subject off at the legs and work your way up the the waist. Cover all of the exposed muscle tissue with cool, soothing vanilla pudding. Day five: Bring in starved fireants and drop them at the subjects toes. Let them go to town. Be sure to wash them off after they've finished, so as not to kill the subject. Give stimulants to ensure subject is still "alive enough" for the next day. Provide antibiotics for missing tissue infection. Day six: Start using a saw to cut away at the femur and thigh bones, slowly, into little slices "potato chip" sized. Day seven: just set the f***er on fire already in a public forum and have everyone laugh at him
AstroProdigy Posted November 20, 2006 Report Posted November 20, 2006 Truly disgusting. That's the kinds of stuff I'd like to see people avoid, but I guess Americans who have not lost anyone because of Saddam, but have suffered under Bush would call for extremely inhumane measures for Saddam while calling Bush a hero.
Zuru Posted November 20, 2006 Report Posted November 20, 2006 I kinda already knew that was going to happen. He does deserve it though. A rare occasion where the death penalty is justified
AstroProdigy Posted November 20, 2006 Report Posted November 20, 2006 The death penalty sure, but torture is uncalled for.
freakout Posted November 21, 2006 Report Posted November 21, 2006 nothing says good old modern day deomcracy like a 17th centery lynching we should go have the ku lux klan go do it.
NBVegita Posted November 21, 2006 Report Posted November 21, 2006 Will he be tortured? No. Does he deserve to be? Yes. Considering the amount of pain and torture he's caused in human beings I would have no problem with him being tortured. He will be made a martyr regardless. I have no personal hate towards the man, but there are hundreds of thousands who do. Or hey, maybe just let him die using one of the chemical weapons he was so handy using. Maybe that would be better justice.
Recommended Posts