Thread: повесили С. Хусейна

Прикольно, спасибо большое.

100,200,300,400 ... 900 are not declinable

Originally Posted by Vincent Tailors

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?

Тогда Америка не владела миром. лол.

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.

but that just isn't going to happen any time soon.

Хочется процитировать:
- 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 )

Originally Posted by basurero

в обычных ситуациях я не одобряю смертную казнь

Что ты называешь "обычной ситуацией"?

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?

Originally Posted by Ramil

Granted. I'm not upset with his death. Another thing that upsets me: should a legitimate court of a legitimate Iraqi government have tried him, I would have never objected but I have serious doubts about the 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 as 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 was established in Iraq. They hurried to kill him because of political reasons and not in pursuance of justice.

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.

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"

Originally Posted by Ramil

I don't know an exact equivalent in English so I'll use a direct translation of a Russian proverb: The 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).
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?

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

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.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Nor did Saddam. The actions of both were dictated by a political necessity. (The way they saw their political interests. In an imaginary situation where 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.

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!

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.

Originally Posted by Vincent Tailors

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?

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.

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/

Originally Posted by Moryachka

Только несколько дней назад два наших подводника погибли, когда их смыло за борт, 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 же довольно часто - на ржавеющем флоте России.

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

Та причина - не логичная вообще. Кто тор_говал нефтью с Ираком до войны? Россия и Франция в основом (и именно поэтому эти страны сопротивлялись войне, совершенно естественно). У США уже было мало бизнесса с ним, так что потеря "долларов" не великая.

Я утверждаю, что причиной была месть. Чистая месть сына старшего Буша. Он хотел закончить дело, которое папа начал. Он использовал уникальную ситуацию в стране, чтобы начать эту войну. Он не мог без 11 сентября.

Originally Posted by Полуношник

Originally Posted by Moryachka

Только несколько дней назад два наших подводника погибли, когда их смыло за борт, но как-то было о-о-очень тихо со стороны наших СМИ. В нашем флоте, мол, аварий на атомных подлодках не бывает. Это, дескать, только случается - и к тому же довольно часто - на ржавеющем флоте России.

[quote=Полуношник]

Originally Posted by "kalinka_vinnie":21h5pppd

Та причина - не логичная вообще. Кто торговал нефтью с Ираком до войны? Россия и Франция , в основом (и именно поэтому эти страны сопротивлялись войне, совершенно естественно). У США уже было мало бизнеса с ним, так что потеря "долларов" не великая.

Я утверждаю, что причиной была месть. Чистая месть сына старшего Буша. Он хотел закончить дело, которое папа начал. Он использовал уникальную ситуацию в стране, чтобы начать эту войну. Он не мог ее начать без 11 сентября.

[/quote:21h5pppd]

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

Any delay of the judicial process due to violence in Iraq will only encourage more violence.

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.

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.

They could have held him elsewhere except Iraq. This way he wouldn't escape.

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"

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.

Uh, Saddam had good intentions when he killed people?

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.

If by that you mean to stay an absolute ruler, instill fear in the people and enrichen himself, then yes, I see your point!

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.

So you think the Nurenburg trials were unfair too?

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.

We should let all the guilty ones go?

I didn't say that. I only said that his execution should have been deferred until turmoils in Iraq have ended.

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

I only say that American actions cannot be called wise concerning Iraq.

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.

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.

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.

Did you see those torture rooms personally?
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.

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!

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.

But that doesn't mean Bush should be hanged. Impeached, maybe, but killed? No.

He too killed many people in Iraq. And there were tortures of Iraqi prisoners of war too.

After all, the president of the United States needs congress approval to go to war. He is no dictator.

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.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

Any delay of the judicial process due to violence in Iraq will only encourage more violence.

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.

Agreed!

Originally Posted by Ramil

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.

They could have held him elsewhere than Iraq. This way he wouldn't escape.

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.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Uh, Saddam had good intentions when he killed people?

Well, I presumed only, but yes, he could have. To secure the stablilty in the region, for example. A life of a man isn't worth much in the Middle East.

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.

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...

Originally Posted by Ramil

So you think the Nurenburg trials were unfair too?

Maybe the nazis thought this way. Who knows. Winners dictate the rules, remember? Should they have won the WW2 there could have been a different Nurenburg and different charges against different people.

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?

Originally Posted by Ramil

I only say that American actions cannot be called wise concerning Iraq.

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.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Saddam could have spared his life and even remained as the Iraqi leader. The only thing he should have done to achieve that was to agree to the American conditions. And nobody would have had any charges against him. He chose not to do so and that's why he was imprisoned and then executed. So in the minds of many arabs he would remain as a man who went against America and therefore - a hero.

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.

Originally Posted by Ramil

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.

Did you see those torture rooms personally?
I'm not saying there weren't ones but it's very hard to believe anything the western media tells us after so many lies they have spread.
I lived in the 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.

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!

Originally Posted by Ramil

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!

Yes, this is the way politics is done in Middle East. Barbaric - yes, but they have the right to be barbaric. Let them fight over it.

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?

Originally Posted by Ramil

But that doesn't mean Bush should be hanged. Impeached, maybe, but killed? No.

He too killed many people in Iraq. And there were tortures of Iraqi prisoners of war too.

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.

Originally Posted by Ramil

After all, the president of the United States needs congress approval to go to war. He is no dictator.

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.

Uh-huh, you've seen this action in person, yes?

Oh, and Ramil! Those definite articles, eh? Otherwise, I am truly impressed with your command of English!

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

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?

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"

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.

No I'm talking about events of the First Gulf War in 1990-91. Saddam could have played a good boy then.

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.

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.

How can you tell everybody is not lying to you? Might as well become a hermit!

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

That is not the way politics is done in the Middle East.

Oh really?

You can not claim that every middle-eastern politician (remember Saddam was "just a politician" (your words) has murdered half their parliment.

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 .

Who gave anybody the right to murder their fellow human beings?

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.

Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet...
by Rudyard Kipling

I doubt the torture was a government condoned action though. And Bush didn't order the deaths of civilians. There is a moral difference.

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?

Oh, and Ramil! Those definite articles, eh?

This is a scourge of mine

Otherwise, I am truly impressed with your command of English!

Thanks

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?

Originally Posted by V

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.