[The Horror]

http://grayfalcon.bl...-une-faute.html

Any interesting read which raises the question: Can a man who ordered the deaths of over 1,500,000 Muslims become an Islamic martyr?

[J m HofMarN]

I don't know if those numbers are correct, and look at Reagan. He butchered tens of thousands of people in south and central america and people still whined like little bitches at his funeral.

Saddam Hussein died well, and at the hands of a great enemy of global freedom which he had fought. Does that excuse his past transgressions, probably not. But that's the image of him a lot of people are going to remember.

[The Horror]

I don't know if those numbers are correct, and look at Reagan. He butchered tens of thousands of people in south and central america and people still whined like little bitches at his funeral.

Did any people from South and Central America attend his funeral? If so, how many?

Saddam Hussein died well, and at the hands of a great enemy of global freedom which he had fought. Does that excuse his past transgressions, probably not. But that's the image of him a lot of people are going to remember.

Great Enemy of Global Freedom? Are you talking about the Shiite Government in Iraq?

[Cyzyk]

America better not be your "great enemy of global freedom". Perhaps the Communist Menace has softened in your eyes due to forgetting about who started the Korean and Viet Nam wars, or who funded the Khmer Rouge, or what the Gulag Archipelago was.

Communism is a bigger enemy of freedom than the US ever was.

[TheOrator]

Certainly he refers (rather hyperbolically, in my opinion) to the country in which he and I both reside.

He refers to the US.

He seems rather adamantly certain that any one country can enslave the whole world.

And he seems pretty darn sure that the country in question is the US.

I'd like very much for you to explain to me why it is that a country based on principles of freedom is going to end up taking it all away.

Somehow.

Mr Hoffman, additionally, you said that most will remember Saddam as a martyr against the US.

This wasn't the martyrdom in question.

The martyrdom in question was that of Muslim martyrdom.

I doubt very much he'll be remembered as one of those.

Power-hungry dictators with a penchant for murdering Muslims (although only because more Muslims were there) with no previous connection to Islam (except for the aforementioned murders) who happen to be executed, for not only non-Pro-Muslim crimes, but arguably anti-Muslims crimes (see those murders) on a Muslim holiday don't often become those.

Do you, Sir Hoffman, consider Saddam a martyr to either cause?

EDIT: My dear Mr Cyzyk, I must argue a point for fairness here.

Communism itself never did anything against freedom (apart from the inherent lack of economic freedom), merely the communists in question. I'm sure these guys would still be jerks if they weren't communists.

This post has been edited by TheOrator: 22 February 2007 - 05:24 PM

[Jordan]

Saddam fought two unsucceful wars. One was with Iran which resulted in million + deaths and bankrupt both economies. The other war invited the US into his country and the third one could have been easily avoided if he had the balls to swallow his pride and allow a full inspection of his country by weapons inspectors, he had nothing to hide so why put on a show as if he did? He then lies to his people, knowing full well that the US was going to attack, as he tucks tail and runs way before the US even enter Iraq.

He was not an enemy of a global threat. He was a global threat and any one who sees him as some one who defied it is a moron. The US made him then broke him, he's a run of the mill sociopathic dictator who was funded by a much wealthier country.

He helped balance power in the middle east. Iran hated him. He's dead and now Iraq Iran will probably be shia loving friends. US fucked up big time.

[Cyzyk]

And he killed a bunch of Kurds. Kurds are good people.

[TheOrator]

Every one of them?

And are they any people who aren't 'good people'?

[Slade]

Jordan: Hussein did allow weapons inspectors in. They couldn't find anything, and Bush just ignored their results. He was no more of a threat than any other country with missiles that doesn't like another.

Of course he ran. When the WTC was taken down, every member of congress in Washington went to various secret hideouts in case something worse was coming. Even members of the house from Bumfuck. Rats evacuating a sinking ship, whatever the color of their fur.

And the "Why not let people in if you have nothing to hide?" argument is fallicious and violates at least the US constitution. We're supposedly presumed innocent until proven guilty, and searches are not allowed unless warrants are issued due to suspicion of guilt. Someone who doesn't let someone search him without cause isn't suspicious, he's defending his right to privacy. Granted, things get spectacularly messy in the international jurisdiction, and then it's whoever has more guns and more men gets to dictate what happens. I'm not saying that the UN didn't have just grounds to go looking for weapons, just that the overall argument is invalid.

Cyzyk: The US started the Viet Nam War. Well, at least US involvement. Most of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was based on general poor intelligence and some smoke and mirrors. OH NOES! TEH KOMUNISTS!

[J m HofMarN]

Did any people from South and Central America attend his funeral? If so, how many?

I don't quite see what you're getting at. No, his constituents attended his funeral, the same as with Saddam. I'm sure many people in Iraq, Nicaragua, Honduras, Grenada, and Berkely (where he ordered the pigs to attack a protest killing 2 students) were quite pleased that justice came to him.

Great Enemy of Global Freedom? Are you talking about the Shiite Government in Iraq?

Ummm... yeah. The government of a small country that can barely piece together an army. No, the US wanted Saddam killed. Know why? Cuz we gave him the targeting information and the training to gas the kurds and shia during the war on Iran. If he had lived to go to trial for that he would have dropped names. Names like Rumsfeld. He had to die before he could testify. And the manor in which it was done reflected the spirit of his murder: a lynching.

I'd like very much for you to explain to me why it is that a country based on principles of freedom is going to end up taking it all away.

You're right, the US is based on principals of freedom. Washington took office saying we should stay out of international affairs and respect individual rights. Bush took office and he legalized wire taps, sent people outside the US to be tortured secretly, kidnapped people, started two wars, instigated terrorism, supported regimes like Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Israel, etc etc.

Read any poll from the rest of the world they're going to tell you the biggest threat to global security is the US regime under Bush. You call what they brought to Iraq freedom? The country's in a civil war for god's sake.

America better not be your "great enemy of global freedom". Perhaps the Communist Menace has softened in your eyes due to forgetting about who started the Korean and Viet Nam wars, or who funded the Khmer Rouge, or what the Gulag Archipelago was.

Communist menace? You mean Cuba and Vietnam? You mean the party I'm a member of? That's right, I'm a part of the communist menace. So go make your report to homeland security, or whatever.

The Koreans started the Korean war. The French started the Vietnam war through their repression, and the US prolonged it by demanding that the country be split in two for no good reason other than that Minh was a communist. Also, I believe funding for the Khmer Rouge came from China but that funding for the VietCong who overthrew them came from the USSR and Cuba.

he had nothing to hide so why put on a show as if he did?

Perhaps because Saddam (correctly) believed Bush was going to launch his illegal genocide no matter whether Saddam had them or (as all evidence showed) did not have them, so Saddam, in a last ditch effort to save his country, claimed he had them to try to deter Bush's aggression? What would you have done in his situation? I think running was the smart thing to do.

He seems rather adamantly certain that any one country can enslave the whole world.

No, Bush seems certain of that. Havnt you heard his pledge to spread "freedom" to the entire world? Can you imagine Bush's brand of freedom being spread to Cuba, Vietnam, Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, etc? It'd be world war 3. And where I differ from Bush is that not only do I not believe that that is impossible, but I pray every night that this vile aggression will fail and the world will throw off the shackles of imperialism.

Do you, Sir Hoffman, consider Saddam a martyr to either cause?

Ok you have a good point. The people he killed were Muslims, but they were Kurds and Shia, while most Muslims are Sunni, so he can still be a martyr to them. Saddam was not particularly Islamic, he was one of the rare secular rulers who was actually fairly tolerant. He didnt kill shia and kurds because of religious differences, he killed them because they rose against him.

In the end, to answer your question, in an Islamic view, Saddam Hussein died in a holy war against an invading force of infidels, he had a Quran in his hands when he died, and he endured people spitting at him and jeering as he went to be lynched by his enemies. That makes him an Islamic martyr and a political martyr.

In my view, I don't think he is the same kind of example as Che Guevara, whos entire life showed nobility, courage and faith in his cause which was equally reflected in his death. But despite the shortfallings of Saddam's life he did twice defy the US and he was lynhed in a fairly attrocious manner. I think his death looked fairly martyry.

[Cyzyk]

Y'know, I don't think you really have any concept of how we are fighting the war in Iraq... you realize we can find insurgents, identify them, listen to them talk about what they are doing, and kill them all without ever actually having a soldier look at them? We do this regularly. If all we wanted was a dead Saddam, he'd have been dead a while ago.

Instead, we did overthrowing Iraq the old-fashioned way.

I'm an Arab-American, and proud of both halves of that. I look Middle Eastern enough to get targeted by so-called "random" searches in airports. Despite the fact I am visually identifiable as an Arab, I have yet to experience anything close to what Solzhenietzin talks about in his books.

America is not such a bad country. And Bush didn't invent Israel. Liberal Europeans did when they had Holocaust guilt, but didn't want the issue to come out of their turf. Israel is maintained by US support provided by powerful Zionist blocs, but I am not about to suggest we shoot all the Jews in this country just because they support Israel. I just wish they'd stop supporting them with weaponry and technology, and sent them some books on how not to screw over the Palestineans.

And you know why Saddam died with a Koran in his hands? Because somebody allowed it. Someone with enough respect for anyone's humanity to let the man die in a way he saw as honorable. I don't recall Saddam giving the Kurds so much respect.

[J m HofMarN]

The US isnt a bad place to live, but if US troops start coming to your country and talking up "freedom" its a good time to invest in a bomb shelter.

I am not about to suggest we shoot all the Jews in this country just because they support Israel.

I'm surely not suggesting that either, and I might point out that many Jews in the US are apauled by what Israel is doing.

Someone with enough respect for anyone's humanity to let the man die in a way he saw as honorable.

Honorable? There were people jeering and spitting at him. He was hung infront of a live studio audience while being filmed for fuck's sake. They went and took pictures of his corpse.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 22 February 2007 - 10:53 PM

[civilian_number_two]

If he requested that he die with a copy of the Koran in his hands, who could refuse that? Anyone wanting to look like he hates religious freedom, that's who. But it's an awesome coup for Conservative fanatics in the West. Now we have a bona-fide image of this evil dictator supporting that vile religion, you see. Since all Muslims are terrorists (or is it the other way around?), and since Saddam has the Koran, then 9/11. QED.

[The Horror]

Communism is a bigger enemy of freedom than the US ever was.

What is this freedom people keep talking about?

[civilian_number_two]

Freedom is the thing that apparently people are fighting for if we want to side with them. If we're on the other side, then it's some kind of personal gain, or oppression, or religious fanaticism, etc.

I just watched the trailer for THE 300, a war movie that shows 300 Spartans against about a million Persioins. While they're doomed, we're of course to understand that they're fighting for "freedom" (this is from the trailer), even though of course this was a p[olytheistic slave-owning people, not exactly the Democracy that we try to hold to these days. Basically it looks like a giant Iraqi conflict propaganda film, with lots and lots of CGI and evil Persians wearing face-obscuring masks. I'm sure looking forward to seeing this one.