Printable View
Я знала, что кто-нибудь это скажет. Но я считаю, что ты не прав. Просто большинство так устроено, что всегда хочет отомстить. А любое зло порождает только новое зло и не возмещает утрату. Только прощение делает человека сильным.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Tailors
Не хочу показаться ханжой, но почему-то хочется напомнить о существовании такой книги как Библия.
P.S. О смысле правосудия можно говорить много, но вряд ли смысл правосудия в том, чтобы убить.
А прощение порождает чувство безнаказанности, нет?Quote:
А любое зло порождает только новое зло и не возмещает утрату.
Во-первых, не всегда.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Tailors
Во-вторых, что ты понимаешь под словом "прощение"? Ты же не считаешь, что пожизненное заключение - это прощение?
Я не имела в виду полную безнаказанность. Зло должно быть обезврежено. Я имела в виду "простить" в смысле - не жаждать всей душой и во что бы то ни стало чьей-либо смерти.
Жизнь человека - слишком великая ценность, чтобы другой человек имел право обдуманно ее отнимать.
А, мы просто недопоняли друг друга. Я думал ты ратуешь за отмену наказаний вообще :)
http://www.polit.ru/img/ggl/sh77.jpg
HAPPY NEW YEAR, Mr. BUSH!!!
Да, это я немного загнула. :oops:Quote:
Originally Posted by mishau_
Пойду исправлю.
I don't really see why Saddam's death should upset so many people. Saddam murdered people with purpose, tortured people (he even had "rape rooms"!) and was a ruthless blood-thirsty villain. He got what he deserved.
Having said that and being against this utterly vain war which was started by Bush on false pretexts and dubious motives, there is a very big difference between Iraqi's dying due to this war and due to Saddam. Every death is a tragedy, you can not judge crime on quantity of life perished. The Americans don't try to kill Iraqis, they have no intent to murder innocent people. That is the big difference between Saddam and Bush. While Bush might be a ignorant fool, he does not order murder out of pure bloodthirstiness. Most civilian deaths in Iraq are not done by Americans, but by terrorists and insurgents and sectarian violence.
Oh, and I corrected Ramil's post below :wink:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
А я однако с ней, с Лампадой. Ее сторонников не видно потому, что или недостаточно хорошо владеют русским чтобы аргументы понимать, или просто в спор лезть не хотят. Не называют Путина диктатором - просто считают его довольно опасным человеком. И кстати - я хорошо знаю, что холодная война еще не закончилась. Доказательсв много. Только несколько дней назад два наши подводники погибли когда их смывало с борта, но как-то было ооочень тихо со стороны наших СМИ. В нашем флоте, мол, аварий на атомных подлодках не бывает. Это, дескать, только случается - и к тому довольно часто - на ржавеющем флоте России. Но это далеко офф-топ. Извините. Я просто хотела, чтоб хоть кто-нибудь из числа американцев на форуме отозвался. Я, правда, тоже очень удивилась, что Саддама так быстро казнили. Мне даже страшнее стало за наших солдат, за моих друзьей. :( И последнее - пожалуйста - поддавляющее большинство солдат никак не интересуются природными ресурсами или бомбардировкой никак им не обидевших людей.Quote:
Originally Posted by mishau_
Спасибо kalinka! Полностью согласна.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie
You have not been shown some very cute photos taken in Iraq, have you? American soldiers are responsible for the lion's share of deaths among civilians in Iraq. Terrorists? Ridiculous. Asserting that the most of civilians were killed by terrorists is as good as claiming that the most deaths among civilians in GPW were not caused by fascists but fellow criminals who wanted to overthrow Stalin's reign.Quote:
Most civilian deaths in Iraq are not done by Americans, but by terrorists and insurgents and sectarian violence.
And anyway, before the invasion there were not any terrorists and thousands of murders.
Vincent - Чечня. Все. Больше безцельно ссориться не буду.
Что чечня?
Бог наказывает гораздо сильнее, чем это в состоянии сделать человек.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Tailors
Не знаешь? :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Tailors
http://music.artofwar.ru/Grozny_-_radioperehvat.mp3
"По некоторым данным - это компиляция из радиоперехватов переговоров 131-й отдельной Майкопской мотострелковой бригады, ведущей бой на железнодорожном вокзале г.Грозного в новогоднюю ночь с 31 декабря 1994 года на 1 января 1995 года, а также блокпостов внутренних войск, оказавшихся в окружении во время штурма Грозного боевиками в августе 1996 года."
Granted. I'm not upset with his death. Another thing upsets me: should a legitimate court of a legitimate Iraqi government tried him I would have never objected but I have serious doubts about legitimacy of the court which sentenced him to death. And many other people have too. Such things raise doubts and doubts generate lies. Many will see Saddam a martyr for a holy cause and if you ask me - his execution (and the verdict) should have been delayed until some resemblance of order establishes in Iraq. They hurried to kill him due to political reasons not in pursuance of justice.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie
I don't know an exact equivalent in English so I'll use a direct translation of the Russian proverb: a road to hell is paved with good intentions. People don't judge the intent, they judge the consequences. (Saddam might as well have had good intentions too when he killed people).Quote:
Having said that and being against this utterly vain war which was started by Bush on false pretexts and dubious motives, there is a very big difference between Iraqi's dying due to this war and due to Saddam. Every death is a tragedy, you can not judge crime on quantity of life perished. The Americans don't try to kill Iraqis, they have no intent to murder innocent people.
Americans didn't have any rights to judge Saddam nor did their puppet Iraqi government. That's all. I'm not saying that Saddam didn't deserve it. First of all - I'm not trying to judge him because I don't know the truth.
Nobody in America blames the Turkish government for ethnic purges of the Kurds. Why is that?
Nor did Saddam. The actions of both were dictated by a political necessity. (The way they saw their political interests. In an imaginary situation when Iraq wins the war Bush would have been sentenced to death likewise). Winners dictate the new rules. Don't make Saddam a bloodthirsty monster. He was just a politician. And approaching Middle East with western moral principles is a mistake by itself because arabs have principles of their own. Again a Russian proverb - don't go to another monastery with your own charter.Quote:
That is the big difference between Saddam and Bush. While Bush might be a ignorant fool, he does not order murder out of pure bloodthirstiness.
Much appreciated. Thanks.Quote:
Oh, and I corrected Ramil's post below :wink:
К чему эта ссылка? Я не понял. Ну, переговоры, и что? В чем посылка-то твоя?Quote:
Не знаешь?
Я не против смерти Саддама Хусейна (в обычных ситуациях я не одобряю смертную казнь, но Ирак - это не обычная ситуация). То, чего я против, это повешение. Поскольку вторжение Ирака было нелегальное, технически Саддам по-прежнему является президентом Страны, так что он заслуживает быть расстрелян.
Он вообще не должен был быть осужден ни за что.Quote:
Originally Posted by basurero
Почему? Я согласен с тем, что Буш тоже совершил преступления против человечества, но это что, значит Саддам не должен быть наказанным? Это значит, что я могу выйти на улицу и убить ста людей цепной пилой, и никто не сможет наказать меня, потому что Буш пока еще не был повешенным! :lol:Quote:
Он вообще не должен был быть осужден ни за что.
Спасибо. В этом сообщении я использовал ту же самую конструкцию, в этот раз правильно?Quote:
расстреляным.
chainsaw -- не цепная пила, а бензопила :) (petrol saw literally).Quote:
Почему? Я согласен с тем, что Буш тоже совершил преступления против человечества, но это что, значит Саддам не должен быть наказанным? Это значит, что я могу выйти на улицу и убить сто людей бензопилой, и никто не сможет наказать меня,! потому что Буша пока ещё (или до сих пор) не повесили?
Much better to say my way (in green). Doesn't look foreign. :)Quote:
В этом сообщении я использовал ту же самую конструкцию, в этот раз правильно?
Дело в том, что Саддам был виновен в том, что хотел продавать нефть за евро, а не доллары. Разве не в этом? ОМП было предлогом, когда его не нашли, Саддама начали судить за какие-то репрессии (хотя обрати внимание, это только ВНУТРЕННИЕ дела страны, пока она не обращается за помощью к мировому сообществу). Причем там ничего особо доказано и не было (против курдов преступления его вообще не доказали).
Басуреро, почему же когда была гражданская война в России, после неё США не припёрлись туда с лозунгами: "Осудим Ленина за преступления против человечества?"
А при Сталине?
Прикольно, спасибо большое. :)
100,200,300,400 ... 900 are not declinable :)
Тогда Америка не владела миром. лол.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Tailors
Во всяком случае, по-моему, наказание злого человека, это хорошая вещь. Конечно, его наказание никак не стоит того, чтобы убить столько невиновных иракцев и американских солдат...
Getting Saddam doesn't justify anything, and Bush should aslo be hung, but that just isn't going to happen any time soon.
Хочется процитировать:Quote:
but that just isn't going to happen any time soon.
- Каждый получает в свой черед,
Что ему назначено от века.
Каждый - от лисы до человека,
И не надо забегать вперед...
(С) Михаил Басин "Моей Лисе"
Будет ему свой Освальд )
Что ты называешь "обычной ситуацией"?Quote:
Originally Posted by basurero
Невозможно "частично" одобрять смертную казнь: либо ты ее одобряешь, либо нет.
Я не одобряю смертную казнь преступников в мирных странах. Но сейчас Ирак в состоянии войны. Глупо ожидать, что они соответствовали бы нашим стандартам, потому что у них есть проблемы, в тысячу раз большие, чем нравственности повешения Саддама. Невиновные люди умирают, Саддама к черту. Конечно, это не уличшит ситуацию, но почему сочувствовать Саддаму?
Well, that is all logical, but you have to see it from their perspective too. Any delay of the judicial process due to violence in Iraq will only encourage more violence. Also, if the disorder becomes even greater, Saddam might escape conviction and return to dictatorship, something that would be a huge disaster for those "in power" now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
PS: I don't think Saddam will be seen as a martyr of a holy cause, he was strictly non-religous and wasn't fighting "in the name of Islam"
Uh, Saddam had good intentions when he killed people? If by that you mean to stay an absolute ruler, instill fear in the people and enrichen himself, then yes, I see your point! So you think the Nurenburg trials were unfair too? We should let all the guilty ones go? Saddam admitted HIMSELF to many of his crimes, you don't have to be biased to believe he is guilty! You are quick to not judge Saddam, but even quicker to judge America on this matter :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
I agree America has double standards. They say "ooh Saddam is dangerous, let's get him" when there are much more legitimate dangers in the world, like North Korea.
I don't think you have been hearing about the things Saddam has been accused of. They found torture rooms in the Iraqi Olympics building, where his sons would torture football players if they lost in an international tournament... very political indeed. Saddam was much more than a mere politician, the first thing he did when he went to power was to kill half the parlimant to weed out opposition. Ah, gotta love middle eastern politics!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Having said that, I still say the war is totally foolish and I am opposed to it. You can't cram democracy down someone's throat. Saddam was no threat to America and they should never have attacked. But that doesn't mean Bush should be hanged. Impeached, maybe, but killed? No. After all, the president of the United States needs congress approval to go to war. He is no dictator.
Та причина - не логичная вообще. Кто тороговал нефтом с Ираком до войны? Россия и Франция в основом (и именно поэтому эти страны совпротивлялись войны, совершенно естественно). У США уже было мало бизнесса с ним, так что потеря "долларов" не великая.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Tailors
Я утверждаю, что причина была месть. Чистая месть сына старшего Буша. Он хотел закончить дело, который папа начал. Он использовал уникальную ситуацию в стране, чтобы начать эту войну. Он не мог без 11 Сентябра.
Насчет мести как-то смонтительно, пальцем в небо. А что если б Буш про Россию подумал, а не про Ирак? Если кто-то начинает войну по любой причине, что в голову взбредёт, то этот кто-то очень опасен. Я думаю, Буш обязательно ответит перед историей. Как поёт один классик: мне предстваляется совсем простая штука - хотели кушать и...
Согласен с Vincent Tailors, Буш хотель наложить свои шаловливые ручонки на иракскую нефть. А когда Ирак сказал "нет" американскому доллару, то быстренько нашли повод для устранения - якобы ядрену бомбу. А ее и не было, поэтому графа Монте-Кристо из них не вышло и им пришлось переквалифицироваться в управдо... то есть в защитников демократии. Так назащищали, что своих 3 тысячи положили и чужих столько сколько и С. за всю свою тиранью карьеру и представить не мог.
Смотрите "Фаренгейт 9/11" - там все ясно сказано, кто такой Буш. Американцам должно быть стыдно перед мировым сообществом за своего дельца-президента.
Ивзините за очепятки, если таковые е.
http://echo.msk.ru/programs/bountman/48662/
Вторник, 2 Январь 2007
Казнь Саддама Хусейна
Этого не могло не произойти. Мало ли что там снимали официально и вырезали сам момент смерти Саддама! Мало ли что официально рассказывали о повешении! А вот, нате в сети – казнь, снятая мобильником. Можно ли было всерьез рассчитывать, что в наше время, когда подглядывание за всем на свете абсолютно возможно? Даже свечку держать не надо: она встроена в твой телефон. Смерть остается, пожалуй, единственным запретным уголком. Но и она не может остаться вне поля электронного ока, когда она организована, юридически обоснована, санкционирована и творится руками людей. Вот и получилась всемирно публичная казнь Саддама Хусейна. Получилось гнусно и отвратительно. Если чего и добились те, кто приговорил Саддама именно к смертной казни, то почти что полного забвения Хусейна-диктатора, Хусейна-убийцы. Остался спокойный, обросший белой бородой человек, мужественно встречающий свой конец, способный даже ответить тем, кто его оскорбляет в последнюю минуту и скандирует имя лидера шиитов. Если, конечно, ставилась цель, чтобы теперь сунниты перерезали шиитов в Ираке, а шииты ответили тем же, можно считать, что она достигнута. Но ставилась ли цель вызвать отвращение к цивилизации, полностью обрушить какую бы то ни было веру в возмездие, справедливость и действенность человеческого суда? Не ставилась, а тоже достигнута. А Саддам не получил по заслугам. Поспешной казнью, корявыми съемками из-под полы, он получил нежданное и неоправданное сочувствие и избавление. Умри он в своем бункере, сгинь он в какой-нибудь тюрьме, не было бы у него такого шанса. Перекинься он на вершине власти – скакали бы от радости по площадям шииты с суннитами. Смертная казнь – это прыщавое нетерпение злобного подростка избавиться от того, что тебя терзает. Грустно и страшновато обнаружить мир в таком состоянии в самом начале нового года, когда хочется надеяться на лучшее.
Год для диктаторов
2006 год имеет шансы войти в историю как год, когда уходили диктаторы: в этом году умерли Аугусто Пиночет, Сапармурат Ниязов, Слободан Милошевич, а теперь вот и Хусейн. При этом Ниязов умер в статусе пожизненного президента и "отца всех туркмен", Пиночет - в статусе подозреваемого в политических убийствах, Милошевич - в статусе обвиняемого в военных преступлениях, а Хусейн - в статусе виновного в таковых.
Радоваться смерти человека, тем более насильственной, грешно. Поэтому остается только надеяться на то, что в этом году, когда умерли четыре диктатора, не родилось ни одного нового.
Артем Ефимов
http://lenta.ru/articles/2006/12/31/saddam/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moryachka
Quote:
Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Полуношник
[quote=Полуношник][/quote:21h5pppd]Quote:
Originally Posted by "kalinka_vinnie":21h5pppd
There were 16 explosions in Baghdad on the day of his execution. Nobody in Iraq wants the Americans stay there. Explosions will cease only when they leave and after many other deaths.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie
They could have held him elsewhere except Iraq. This way he wouldn't escape.Quote:
Also, if the disorder becomes even greater, Saddam might escape conviction and return to dictatorship, something that would be a huge disaster for those "in power" now.
You know it, I know it, but there are people who will use his death to inspire people into more hatred against the Americans and their political enemies using religion as a tool. Any story could be misinterpreted and this one is no exception.Quote:
PS: I don't think Saddam will be seen as a martyr of a holy cause, he was strictly non-religous and wasn't fighting "in the name of Islam"
Well, I presumed only, but yes, he could have. To secure the stablilty in the region, for example. A life of a man doesn't worth much in the Middle East.Quote:
Uh, Saddam had good intentions when he killed people?
He might have considered it as a good intentions also for Iraq will gain more wealth and prosperity. I don't think that he didn't think of his country at all.Quote:
If by that you mean to stay an absolute ruler, instill fear in the people and enrichen himself, then yes, I see your point!
Maybe nazis thought this way. Who knows. Winners dictate the rules, remember? Should they have won the WW2 there could have been another Nurenburg and different charges against different people.Quote:
So you think the Nurenburg trials were unfair too?
I didn't say that. I only said that his execution should have been deferred until turmoils in Iraq have ended.Quote:
We should let all the guilty ones go?
I only say that American actions cannot be called wise concerning Iraq.Quote:
Saddam admitted HIMSELF to many of his crimes, you don't have to be biased to believe he is guilty! You are quick to not judge Saddam, but even quicker to judge America on this matter :wink:
Saddam could have spared his life and even remained as an Iraqi leader. The only thing he should have done to achieve that is to agree to the American conditions. And nobody would have any charges against him. He chose not to do that and that's why he was imprisoned and then executed. So in minds of many arabs he would remain as a man who went against America and therefore - a hero.Quote:
I agree America has double standards. They say "ooh Saddam is dangerous, let's get him" when there are much more legitimate dangers in the world, like North Korea.
Did you see those torture rooms personally?Quote:
I don't think you have been hearing about the things Saddam has been accused of. They found torture rooms in the Iraqi Olympics building, where his sons would torture football players if they lost in an international tournament... very political indeed.
I'm not saying there weren't ones but it's very hard to believe a thing western media tells us after so many lies they have spread.
I lived in USSR, a state which used similar tricks when it was necessary to justify the actions of the government. I don't believe in anything media wants me to believe.
Yes, this is the way politics is done in Middle East. Barbaric - yes, but they have the right to be barbaric. Let them fight it over.Quote:
Saddam was much more than a mere politician, the first thing he did when he went to power was to kill half the parlimant to weed out opposition. Ah, gotta love middle eastern politics!
He too killed many people in Iraq. And there were tortures of Iraqi prisoners of war too.Quote:
But that doesn't mean Bush should be hanged. Impeached, maybe, but killed? No.
Don't make me laugh. American presidents have a long tradition of persuading the Congress into anything they want. An outward appearance of a democracy is not a true democracy yet.Quote:
After all, the president of the United States needs congress approval to go to war. He is no dictator.
Agreed!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
I didn't mean necessarily physically escape. If the Americans left and Saddam was alive and still in custody of the Iraqis, there would be a possibility of him returning to power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
I am sure he did think about his country sometimes. You count the number of palaces he had (OFICIALLY) and you tell me he though about the country first and himself second...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Winners do dictate the rules, but it doesn't mean the winners are always wrong. You tell me that Goering was not guilty just because the Allies won the war?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Agreed. But I don't think the execution of Saddam was a particularily unwise move. The Americans are doing alot of things wrong, but not everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
What American conditions are you talking about? I am pretty sure the American conditions was to remove him from power. Maybe spare his life, but I don't think he'd be an Iraqi leader no more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
I have seen pictures, yes. Unlike the USSR media, the western media (and we've discussed this elsewhere) is not dictated by what the US government says. Remember most of the civilized world, including "the West" are against the Iraqi war, but they still report on Saddam's brutalities. They would only be all too delighted to find out that Saddam was really a nice boy who was sacrificing himself for his people under difficult conditions. It is funny how "you can't know for sure about Saddam's actions, because you haven't personally seen it", but you can call America unwise and the trials unfair and complain about explosions, when you haven't personally seen it. How can you tell everybody is not lying to you? Might as well become a hermit! :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
That is not the way politics is done in the Middle East. You can not claim that every middle-eastern politician (remember Saddam was "just a politician" (your words) has murdered half their parliment. You are saying they have the right to kill hundreds of people (let them be babaric)? Now that is an entirely different philosophical question. Who gave anybody the right to murder their fellow human beings?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Those soldiers who tortured Iraqi prisoners (I don't think they were POWs) should have been punished alot more severely than they were. I doubt the torture was a government condoned action though. And Bush didn't order the deaths of civilians. There is a moral difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Uh-huh, you've seen this action in person, yes? :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Oh, and Ramil! Those definite articles, eh? Otherwise, I am truly impressed with your command of English! :thumbs:
What's truth? It's not an absolute term by any means. It's relative. There's no absolute truth. I should rephrase my saying - the truth is defined by the winners. Millions of the Germans were beguiled by what Dr. Joseph Goebbels had said them. They were sincerely thinking that massacring the Jews was necessary and all the crimes committed by Hitler were not defined as such. By the way - those who study public relations and advertising business study Goebbels' experience of mass consciousness manipulation. If you're interested - familiarize yourself with Propaganda by Edward L. Bernays or as people call him "the father of spin"Quote:
Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie
No I'm talking about events of the First Gulf War in 1990-91. Saddam could have played a good boy then.Quote:
What American conditions are you talking about? I am pretty sure the American conditions was to remove him from power. Maybe spare his life, but I don't think he'd be an Iraqi leader no more.
There is a censorship in US. They don't usually use it widely but yes - they can "recommend" or "not recommend" something to be said in the news blocks. The model use monetary levers to influence on the publishers for nearly all mass media in US is owned (or controlled) by several dozens of people who can be controlled personally.Quote:
I have seen pictures, yes. Unlike the USSR media, the western media (and we've discussed this elsewhere) is not dictated by what the US government says.
Everybody IS lying to us. :) Everything said on TV - is only one version of "the truth" :) Weather forecasts are the only thing I could trust watching TV :)Quote:
How can you tell everybody is not lying to you? Might as well become a hermit! :wink:
Oh really? :lol:Quote:
That is not the way politics is done in the Middle East.
That's the extremes. Middle eastern leaders typically don't have to butcher through their parliament because many middle eastern states are monarchies so they don't need to do that :).Quote:
You can not claim that every middle-eastern politician (remember Saddam was "just a politician" (your words) has murdered half their parliment.
I'll ask another question: who would deny them doing so? Killing someone was not so big a crime back in Medieval times even in Europe. Middle East is still in feudalism so they use a correspondent moral model. That's only natural. I am talking about killing their fellow muslims. Killing an infidel like you and me is regarded as a virtue there.Quote:
Who gave anybody the right to murder their fellow human beings?
Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet...
by Rudyard Kipling
You can't order to bomb a city not knowing that at least some bombs will miss their targets and kill civilians. There's even a military term (something like "tolerable civilian casualties") - civilian deaths are the statistics today. And Saddam too could have said that he didn't order tortures or executions personally, so what?Quote:
I doubt the torture was a government condoned action though. And Bush didn't order the deaths of civilians. There is a moral difference.
This is a scourge of mine :wall:Quote:
Oh, and Ramil! Those definite articles, eh?
Thanks :oops:Quote:
Otherwise, I am truly impressed with your command of English! :thumbs:
I can't be bothered to read all of this, but are there actually people in here suggesting that Western media is generally pro-US?
:|
No, I am only saying that Western media reflects only Western general opinion on the matter using western values in judging what's right and what's wrong. And that no media in the world can be trusted in delivering a reliable information on anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by V