OK, what now?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6218485.stm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16389128/

Celebrate!

Throw his body out the front door of the prison and let the jubilant citizens of Baghdad drag it through the streets.

I'm with al-b on this one....

Think I'll have a Jack Daniels and say a toast to the man who got 3 inches taller in a matter of seconds.....

Dragging his vile corpse through the streets would be a fitting end to his tyranny.........

I'm with al-b on this one....

Think I'll have a Jack Daniels and say a toast to the man who got 3 inches taller in a matter of seconds.....

Dragging his vile corpse through the streets would be a fitting end to his tyranny.........


Right. With any luck they'll be hitting the corpse with their shoes.  ;D

I think they're going to dump him in an unmarked grave in an undisclosed location.

I think they're going to dump him in an unmarked grave in an undisclosed location.
Either that or they'll cremate him and scatter his ashes in the Tigris or Euphrates River or something.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! He's my father!!  :\'(

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! He's my father!!  :\'(
That explains a lot.  :o :o :o

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! He's my father!!  :\'(

OK there, Luke.
:P

They say he was executed between 5:30 and 6:00 A.M. Iraqi time.

I say he was executed between his cervical vertebrae!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/05/hanged.gif

"Deposed Iraqi dictator hanged for deaths of 148 Shiites in 1982"

I guess the prosecutors went for the easiest thing to prove that would result in a death penalty. Bye-bye Saddam, don't let the trap door hit your ass on the way out!

...I think I'll go watch South Park: Bigger, Longer, Uncut now.  ;D

Too bad it wasn't Osama bin Laden.  People would be partying in the streets if it was him, though even his execution wouldn't change anything.  But it would make for a great pinata.

Too bad it wasn't Osama bin Laden.  People would be partying in the streets if it was him, though even his execution wouldn't change anything.  But it would make for a great pinata.


I think they'd still be partying in the streets no matter who it was.

Too bad it wasn't Osama bin Laden.  People would be partying in the streets if it was him, though even his execution wouldn't change anything.  But it would make for a great pinata.


Osama didn't p*ss off the Bush family.  He didn't steal any of their oil.

No ten years of appeals for Saddam!  They don't play that tune in Iraq!

The talk radio show I'm listening to right now played that song by Steam (Na na na na hey hey hey goodbye) and then Another One Bites The Dust.


Oh well.

Looks like he's a goner now. Good riddance.

everyone is talking about 10,000 people in times square are in danger...but they always say that

News travels fast. Three people just brought it up on messengers.

Ha!

Ha!



Damn, they're quick.

I wonder if he's enjoying the 72 virgins?  ???

I wonder if he's enjoying the 72 virgins?  ???



I hope he suffers from ED with each one of them.  And then they laugh.

I wonder if he's enjoying the 72 virgins?  ???
You mean the 72 Virginians?

You mean the 72 Virginians?



Robin Williams is hilarious.

Saddam was 69.  ;D ;D ;D

Such a lucky number for an unlucky guy.

2007 is already looking good, it will be Saddam free.

Too bad it wasn't Osama bin Laden.  But it would make for a great pinata.

Man, Chris. I was gonna say that about Saddam! And Max? I don't think it was just the Bush family, this scuzzball PO'd the entire American people. Of course, I think Pres. Bush can now say "Mission Accomplished" for real. We can bring the boys & girls home and feel good about it after this. Justice is done, may God have mercy on his soul.

As for Osama, if by some chance we capture him alive, I think we should chain him to a lamppost in Central Park and let every last citizen of New York City line up to take a swing at him (two swings for everyone who lost a family member on 9/11, three for all members of NYFD & NYPD). After them, first ya get the Yankees, then ya get the Mets...

Your Pal,
Doc
8)

I an not going to be missing him, anytime soon.  ::)

After them, first ya get the Yankees, then ya get the Mets...

Your Pal,
Doc
8)



Jason Giambi swings a mean bat.

Wonderful, now he is a martyr. Surely the U.S. wiill have victory now and freedom and liberty shall ring! ::)

Wonderful, now he is a martyr. Surely the U.S. wiill have victory now and freedom and liberty shall ring! ::)


::)

Ah yes of course, because in bizaro-world, people who participate in genocide are rewarded.

::)

Ah yes of course, because in bizaro-world, people who participate in genocide are rewarded.


I oppose the death penalty in all cases.

::)

Ah yes of course, because in bizaro-world, people who participate in genocide are rewarded.



Of course he'll be rewarded.  72 virgins, remember?

Of course he'll be rewarded.  72 virgins, remember?


But wouldn't he want 72 experienced women instead?

But wouldn't he want 72 experienced women instead?



You'd think the Koran would make exception for that very reason, but it doesn't.

I always wonder what people are thinking when they make fun of the 72 virgins thing. It seems religiously insensitive to me. Because some extremist Musllims do awful things its okay to be disrespectful of other's religions? I don't think it is.

Who's being disrespecful?  Lighten the hell up.  It's in the Koran.....you get 72 virgins when your happy ass lands in paradise.  We're just saying that 72 inexperienced women doesn't sound like much fun. 

Who's being disrespecful?  Lighten the hell up.  It's in the Koran.....you get 72 virgins when your happy ass lands in paradise.  We're just saying that 72 inexperienced women doesn't sound like much fun. 


Unless they were 72 virgins that watched a lot of hardcore porn!

I always wonder what people are thinking when they make fun of the 72 virgins thing. It seems religiously insensitive to me. Because some extremist Musllims do awful things its okay to be disrespectful of other's religions? I don't think it is.


It's mocking of the extremists and the fact that they believe that they're actually getting a reward for their terrorist actions, THEY deserve zero respect and that's what I give them.

I always wonder what people are thinking when they make fun of the 72 virgins thing. It seems religiously insensitive to me. Because some extremist Musllims do awful things its okay to be disrespectful of other's religions? I don't think it is.


Because it's even more laughable than most religious dogma.

Unless they were 72 virgins that watched a lot of hardcore porn!



Well, then they might know a thing or 25.

Well, then they might know a thing or 25.


Yeah, and I'm sure that it'd be totally tight.

Because it's even more laughable than most religious dogma.


Thinking any religious dogma is any more laughable than another is a mistake IMO.

Its all equally senseless. I don't like or understand it when people try to target specific religions.

It's mocking of the extremists and the fact that they believe that they're actually getting a reward for their terrorist actions, THEY deserve zero respect and that's what I give them.


Well whether you accept it or not you're also mocking Islam as a religion with those types of comments.

Thinking any religious dogma is any more laughable than another is a mistake IMO.

Its all equally senseless. I don't like or understand it when people try to target specific religions.


Well, this thread isn't about the virilance of Islam.. I just happen to find inherently violent religions worse than mildly violent religions. I'm totally digging the eastern religions.. they've got their heads screwed on right. I dig the Sikh idea which is like.. 'Yo, don't be a prick.. people will probably give you props occasionally'.

Okay everybody, out of the pool!

Well, this thread isn't about the virilance of Islam.. I just happen to find inherently violent religions worse than mildly violent religions.


Yeah, you just happen to be a bit prejudiced. ::)

Last call everyone!  Out of the pool!

How so?


Hes obviously prejudiced against Islam. He doesn't show it the level of respect he would afford to other organized religions. Thats prejudice.

Its about what I've come to expect, its pretty typical of America these days. Blacks, Jews and women are off limits now, but you wanna be a bigot against Muslims, gay people or atheists? Go right ahead! ::)

Its about what I've come to expect, its pretty typical of America these days. Blacks, Jews and women are off limits now, but you wanna be a bigot against Muslims, gay people or atheists? Go right ahead! ::)
And rednecks too.

EVERYONE OUT OF THE POOL NOW!

Well whether you accept it or not you're also mocking Islam as a religion with those types of comments.


Whatever you say.  ::)

EVERYONE OUT OF THE POOL NOW!


Que?


Whatever you say.  ::)


You were making fun of an aspect of their religion. You claim you're just targeting the terrorits, sorry Charlie, you're still insulting 1.3. billion Muslims. Thats like saying its alright to say "towel head" if you only use it on Osama.  ::)

EVERYONE OUT OF THE POOL NOW!
Toss one of these in the pool, that'll clear everyone out.

http://www.babyruth.com/images/spl_img.gif

I wasn't aware that disliking Muslim extremists and fundamentalists equalled a dislike of Islam.  I don't like the Christian fundies that try and convert me and shove pamphlets under my door, but that doesn't mean I hate Christianity.  I was raised Catholic, after all.  Something that in my own way, I take seriously.


Unclench already.

I wasn't aware that disliking Muslim extremists and fundamentalists equalled a dislike of Islam. 


You're not just "disliking Muslim extremists", you were making fun of a religious concept in Islam. If I were to make fun of the idea of the Jews being God's chosen people, would I not be bigoted even if I tried to somehow justify it with saying "well I'm only saying this out of my dislike for Israeli extremists"?

Que?

You were making fun of an aspect of their religion. You claim you're just targeting the terrorits, sorry Charlie, you're still insulting 1.3. billion Muslims. Thats like saying its alright to say "towel head" if you only use it on Osama.  ::)

All I saw him say was he finds it humerous that these individuals who commit atrocious attacks expect this supposed paradise after commiting them.


You're not just "disliking Muslim extremists", you were making fun of a religious concept in Islam. If I were to make fun of the idea of the Jews being God's chosen people, would I not be bigoted even if I tried to somehow justify it with saying "well I'm only saying this out of my dislike for Israeli extremists"?


Watch - HAHAHAHA! Jews as God's chosen people, what a crock. Nobody is!

You're not just "disliking Muslim extremists", you were making fun of a religious concept in Islam. If I were to make fun of the idea of the Jews being God's chosen people, would I not be bigoted even if I tried to somehow justify it with saying "well I'm only saying this out of my dislike for Israeli extremists"?


I'm making fun of the extremists use of that concept not the concept itself.

You're not just "disliking Muslim extremists", you were making fun of a religious concept in Islam. If I were to make fun of the idea of the Jews being God's chosen people, would I not be bigoted even if I tried to somehow justify it with saying "well I'm only saying this out of my dislike for Israeli extremists"?



Unclench NOW.  All I said was that 72 inexperienced women may not be a good time. 

I'm making fun of the extremists use of that concept not the concept itself.


Yup.

I'm the one making fun of the concept it'self. Why rag on Brian?

Watch - HAHAHAHA! Jews as God's chosen people, what a crock. Nobody is!


I thought the Mormons were the chosen ones.

I stand by my assertions.

I stand by my assertions.


ok.

I stand by my assertions.



Even though you're wrong, have fun.

I thought the Mormons were the chosen ones.


Nah, it was them black people at the door.

Nah, it was them black people at the door.


*snort*

I hope they spun his body around a few times before they cut it down.

Goodbye!  8)

Good Riddance!   
Saddam

I always wonder what people are thinking when they make fun of the 72 virgins thing. It seems religiously insensitive to me. Because some extremist Musllims do awful things its okay to be disrespectful of other's religions? I don't think it is.


I imagine that you realize, of course, that The Quran makes no mention of the 72 virgins theory.  ???

It is not a religious concept but rather it is something conjured up by the terrorists.

Besides, even if it WERE a truly religious thing, any entity, religious or not, that sees murder and mayhem rewarded by 72 virgins in heaven is fair game for revulsion and ridicule.  That also, by the way, includes "religions" that say you will go to hell if you do not join THEIR religion, or religions that consider people not born into their religion as having fewer civil rights, or religions that support the caste system.

OK I think I covered most of the major religions there.

Bigotry is unjustly treating people because of something beyond their control.  Freedom of Speech and Association is to call people out for beliefs or behavior, fully within their control, with which one does not agree.

The "PC Police" always seem to forget that second point.  ::)

But wouldn't he want 72 experienced women instead?


Who said he was gonna get 72 virgin women??  Maybe Allah will play a cruel trick on him and give him 72 virgin men......

I think this should be a lesson to all leaders in all countries who perpetuate genocide, wars, the deaths of innocent civilians, torture.  None should be exempt, I will repeat none

Who said he was gonna get 72 virgin women??  Maybe Allah will play a cruel trick on him and give him 72 virgin men......


You never know, he might like it.

It's mocking of the extremists and the fact that they believe that they're actually getting a reward for their terrorist actions, THEY deserve zero respect and that's what I give them.


Agreed Brian.....

From my understanding of Islam, it does not condone violence.  My understanding is that a handful of zealots have bastardized the written word of Islam to suit their needs and a new faction was born.  They merely use "religion" as an excuse to raise hell and try and justify thier antics to the world.  Obviously, if everyone were as dumb as they would like us to be then we'd all be fanatical, however thats not the case.  Most people are not content to be herded like sheep into following the words of a few idiots who have axes to grind.

Just because a few comments have been made concerning the writings of the Quran does not mean that a mockery is being made of the entire religion, rather a mockery is being made of the small percentage of the believers of Islam that suicide bombings and the like will result in eternal pleasure, and are using the Quran as a basis for their actions.  Those that are of that small percentage are scum and deserve no respect, or human rights that we as a society consider correct.

I hope he rots in hell, and may a few thousand more of his loyal followers soon join him....

You were making fun of an aspect of their religion. You claim you're just targeting the terrorits, sorry Charlie, you're still insulting 1.3. billion Muslims.


Perhaps the sliver of a percentage of the extremists using religion as an excuse for their actions are insulting those 1.3 billion LOYAL MUSLIMS by  THEIR actions rather than a few words in JEST that people are using on here, eh??

  We afforded Saddam the easiest way out.  He should have been assigned a life of hard labor, poverty, obscurity, and hopefully reflection... 

  His death will accomplish nothing for peace...

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-6/1193336/rodeo_clowns.gif

Jason Giambi swings a mean bat.


A-Rod will finally be cheered for something for once ;D

I just can't rejoice at this. Don't get me wrong, I think Saddam was a nasty creature but I'm not too sure if this was justice.



  We afforded Saddam the easiest way out.  He should have been assigned a life of hard labor, poverty, obscurity, and hopefully reflection... 

  His death will accomplish nothing for peace...



I agree completely! I am just bracing for the reprocussions that this will bring-and it will bring some.



Cat

just goes to show you how the bush family treats its business partners.  ::)

Admittedly, the prospect of Saddam doing hard labor every day in the 110 degree Alabama sun is a pleasent thought, especially knowing he'd have to be kept in solitary for the next 40 years or however long he was alive. But you just know every Liberal from here to Bezerkely would be demanding he receive fair treatment, wasn't subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.. yada yada yada, the usual fuzzy mob schpiel. Plus, hanging him is cheap and quick.
Of course there's gonna be people blowing themselves up saying it was for Saddam but in case you haven't noticed the same individuals are blowing themselves up for anything else going. It's a child-like mentality.

  We afforded Saddam the easiest way out.  He should have been assigned a life of hard labor, poverty, obscurity, and hopefully reflection... 

  His death will accomplish nothing for peace...


I just can't rejoice at this. Don't get me wrong, I think Saddam was a nasty creature but I'm not too sure if this was justice.



I agree completely! I am just bracing for the reprocussions that this will bring-and it will bring some.



Cat


Thank goodness, some sense in this thread! Karma to you both.

I think this should be a lesson to all leaders in all countries who perpetuate genocide, wars, the deaths of innocent civilians, torture.  None should be exempt, I will repeat none


Um I think the only message this sends to other dictators is to arm up with nukes so this doesn't happen to you.

I imagine that you realize, of course, that The Quran makes no mention of the 72 virgins theory.  ???

It is not a religious concept but rather it is something conjured up by the terrorists.



Um, in al-Islam there are also the Hadiths, which hold as much importance as the Qur'an. They are the source of sha'riah(Islamic law) and the Sunnah(the example of Prophet Muhammad, the way in which Muslims are supposed to live their everyday lives).

Okay I believe the Hadith supporting it is in Sahih al-Bukhari, I'm looking for it.

Also the Qur'an does not say anything about there being 72 virgins in Jinnah(Islamic heaven), however it does talk about the "houri" who are beatiful women in heaven created by God for his follows, they are essentially concubines.

I always wonder what people are thinking when they make fun of the 72 virgins thing. It seems religiously insensitive to me. Because some extremist Musllims do awful things its okay to be disrespectful of other's religions? I don't think it is.

Why shouldn't people make fun of "the 72 virgins thing"?  It's a risible and morally corrupt concept.  It's not because extremist Muslims do awful things that I have no respect for Islam, it's because it's a huge edifice of balony constructed around a centrally flawed premise.  Just like Christianity, Judaism and the rest.

There is a tendency to pussyfoot around criticism of Islam for two main reasons: firstly, it has exactly the same claims to legitimacy as the other YHVH-based religions, and you can't honestly criticize Islam without opening the others to the same sort of examination; secondly, Muslims can get oh, so, touchy about their God or prophet being dissed.  But if he's an almighty, all-powerful God, WTF do they need to get annoyed about it?  Surely this all-powerful Allah should be able to do the job for them?  Instead, it's his poor, duped, brainwashed, deluded, idiotic followers who blow themselves to smithereens for no noticeable benefit whatsoever.

As for Saddam, I can't rejoice that he's dead: anybody's death is a sad occasion, no matter how cruel and murderous they may have been.  It's not as if it's going to make any noticeable difference to Iraq.

Why shouldn't people make fun of "the 72 virgins thing"?  It's a risible and morally corrupt concept.  It's not because extremist Muslims do awful things that I have no respect for Islam, it's because it's a huge edifice of balony constructed around a centrally flawed premise.  Just like Christianity, Judaism and the rest.

There is a tendency to pussyfoot around criticism of Islam for two main reasons: firstly, it has exactly the same claims to legitimacy as the other YHVH-based religions, and you can't honestly criticize Islam without opening the others to the same sort of examination; secondly, Muslims can get oh, so, touchy about their God or prophet being dissed.  But if he's an almighty, all-powerful God, WTF do they need to get annoyed about it?  Surely this all-powerful Allah should be able to do the job for them?  Instead, it's his poor, duped, brainwashed, deluded, idiotic followers who blow themselves to smithereens for no noticeable benefit whatsoever.


Couldn't put it any better myself.

^ Although many of the religions have the general common sense rules like "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt be nice to thy parents because they give you money"...it's the "let's kill everyone else because they don't believe in our God" snippets that worry me.  Religions aren't all bad, but the so-called "followers" who misconstrue the so-called "teachings" make life a bit more miserable for the rest of us.

Carry on.

Why shouldn't people make fun of "the 72 virgins thing"?  It's a risible and morally corrupt concept.  It's not because extremist Muslims do awful things that I have no respect for Islam, it's because it's a huge edifice of balony constructed around a centrally flawed premise.  Just like Christianity, Judaism and the rest.

There is a tendency to pussyfoot around criticism of Islam for two main reasons: firstly, it has exactly the same claims to legitimacy as the other YHVH-based religions, and you can't honestly criticize Islam without opening the others to the same sort of examination; secondly, Muslims can get oh, so, touchy about their God or prophet being dissed.  But if he's an almighty, all-powerful God, WTF do they need to get annoyed about it?  Surely this all-powerful Allah should be able to do the job for them?  Instead, it's his poor, duped, brainwashed, deluded, idiotic followers who blow themselves to smithereens for no noticeable benefit whatsoever.

As for Saddam, I can't rejoice that he's dead: anybody's death is a sad occasion, no matter how cruel and murderous they may have been.  It's not as if it's going to make any noticeable difference to Iraq.


Exactly it's a ridiculous idea that I've only seen touted by the extremist terrorist Muslims anyway.

Why shouldn't people make fun of "the 72 virgins thing"?  It's a risible and morally corrupt concept.  It's not because extremist Muslims do awful things that I have no respect for Islam, it's because it's a huge edifice of balony constructed around a centrally flawed premise.  Just like Christianity, Judaism and the rest.



The problem here is that Islam was being particularly singled out. All religions are equally flawed by nature. Singling one out is bigotry IMO.


Exactly it's a ridiculous idea that I've only seen touted by the extremist terrorist Muslims anyway.


Well sorry, its in the Hadith which are as valid a religious text in Islam as the Qur'an.

I hope that you are non-religious Brian. Otherwise for you to call a religious concept in Islam "ridiculous" is hypocritical. They are all ridiculous, none more than the other.

Saddam was 69.  ;D ;D ;D
does that mean he'll really enjoy 72 virgins?? :D

Exactly it's a ridiculous idea that I've only seen touted by the extremist terrorist Muslims anyway.
sorta like how the entire world was made in six days? or that if you don't believe in jesus some red dude's gonna stick a pitchfork in your nads forever?

as an agnostic i have to say i dont see a damn bit of difference between the muslim beheadings and the christian love for snapping necks -- except the christians seem to have much, much bigger bombs.

sorta like how the entire world was made in six days? or that if you don't believe in jesus some red dude's gonna stick a pitchfork in your nads forever?


That's ridiculous too I agree, obviously false.

The problem here is that Islam was being particularly singled out. All religions are equally flawed by nature. Singling one out is bigotry IMO.

In context, it's kind of hard not to single one specific religion out when you're joking about heavenly virgins.  Speaking for myself, the one thing I can always point to is jokes I've made about pretty much every major religion (with the exception of Zoroastrianism - it doesn't seem to scan/rhyme very well), and a few of the minor ones.  But to call someone on bigotry would probably require a little bit more evidence, IMHO.

I do wonder, though: if one were to deflower one of ones heavenly host of virgins, do they suddenly disappear, 'cause they're not virgins any more.  If that's the case, 72 to last for all eternity doesn't seem like very many


Well sorry, its in the Hadith which are as valid a religious text in Islam as the Qur'an.

As the song goes, "Sorry is the Hadith word" (or something like that)

As the song goes, "Sorry is the Hadith word" (or something like that)


I'm sorry but I don't know what you're talking about here. ???

Could you explain?

The problem here is that Islam was being particularly singled out. All religions are equally flawed by nature. Singling one out is bigotry IMO.




Well there's not much point in talking about Buddhism or Catholocism when we're on a topic about Muslims, is there????

I'm sorry but I don't know what you're talking about here. ???

Could you explain?

A sense of the ridiculous, combined with a dislike for Elton John songs.

Thorry.

Well there's not much point in talking about Buddhism or Catholocism when we're on a topic about Muslims, is there????
no, actually, there's no point talking about islamic barbarism in a vacuum, unless the immoral acts of christians who are leveling the accusations are taken into account one runs the risk of hypocrisy, no?

no, actually, there's no point talking about islamic barbarism in a vacuum, unless the immoral acts of christians who are leveling the accusations are taken into account one runs the risk of hypocrisy, no?


You've expressed what I was getting at much more eloquently. :)

Karma+1

So, Saddam has swung.  Now we have to deal with even more anti- Americanism.  Maybe his victims can now rest in peace.  I notice he was wearing the same suit he's been pictures wearing for the past 4 months.  Early reports said he was going to be wearing the green prison uniform.

no, actually, there's no point talking about islamic barbarism in a vacuum, unless the immoral acts of christians who are leveling the accusations are taken into account one runs the risk of hypocrisy, no?


I agree with you, to a point.

I am not extremely religious, however, I have some knowledge of the bible.  Christians have indeed "snapped necks" as somebody said earlier, and "in the name of Christianity" has been used as an excuse through the milennia.  However, I do not recall anywhere in the bible where the Christian Fundies are promised much of anything except passage through the pearly gates.

Islam for some reason feels it necessary to not only offer you passage through the gates, so to speak, but also has to offer you 72 virgins to get you to do Allahs work??  If the goal of Islam is to indeed strap on a few pounds of explosives and blow yourself and the "Christian Infidels" up in order to get to your "reward" quicker, then why aren't all Muslims doing that??  I would make the assumption here thats it's because like any followed faith, not all are duped by the rantings of a few extremists.

All religions have their extremist followers, thats a given.  Very few these days actually promote the slaughter of "infidels" and offer you a "flesh reward" for doing so.

Perhaps, since somebody on here had to take exception to a few words spoken in jest on here about the 72 virgins deal, another thread should be started about the snafus of religious beliefs, rather than get all clenched up and choose to make this thread a "point-counterpoint" thread, leaving it instead to be about Saddam and his miracle growth spurt.....

if i had to guess i'd wager that the 72 virgins thing, taken literally, is a bit of a fringe in the islamic religion, sorta like how heavens gate thought UFOs would offer you nikes if you cut your beans off, or how david koresh thought that because he was jesus reincarnate he was entitled to bang 13-year-olds. now, that such fringe opinions might be more commonplace in islam than in christianity -- if it is -- can possibly be explained by the presence of israeli tanks in palestine, the fact that the iraqis get an hour of electrical power a day, the fact that iran and iraq fought an 8-year-war that killed a million on both sides only to discover that western powers were in fact AIDING both sides. right or wrong, those guys over there have gone through some BS folks like us can't even begin to imagine. they're likely to be a bit more into conspiracy theories, whacked out theologies, the works. i notice the folks at waco weren't terribly rich either. ditto the christians who bought jim jones' schpiel at guyana. physical extremity begets pyschological extremity -- anyway, i'd guess your educated upper middle class muslims, your edward saids, say, probably dont give much credence to the 72 virgin thing.

from my understanding of the bible heaven's supposed to be a bliss that goes far beyond sex -- you sing god's praises to eternity and it's a constant bliss that beats sex all out. gotta do something to balance out that eternity of relentless agony you're promised if you genuflect in the wrong order during mass.

no, actually, there's no point talking about islamic barbarism in a vacuum, unless the immoral acts of christians who are leveling the accusations are taken into account one runs the risk of hypocrisy, no?


  And besides, at least one of the twelve Apostles is known to have carried a sword...

  I wonder if Buddha was packing... :)

 

 

if i had to guess i'd wager that the 72 virgins thing, taken literally, is a bit of a fringe in the islamic religion,


Actually like I said, theres theological grounds for the belief in the Hadiths.

Actually like I said, theres theological grounds for the belief in the Hadiths.


I had no idea about the Hadiths or what that is, I was reading the wiki on it, and I think I understand that it's a supplemental tradition? to the koran or along those lines.

Actually like I said, theres theological grounds for the belief in the Hadiths.
there's theological grounds to believe in noah's ark, too. but reason immediately rejects it. ;)

   We afforded Saddam the easiest way out.  He should have been assigned a life of hard labor, poverty, obscurity, and hopefully reflection... 

   His death will accomplish nothing for peace...
They can't sentence the same punishment that is given to lesser degree crimes. If you do that then the lesser degree crimes then would need to have less punishment and so on and so on, and it degrades the entire scale of punishment for crime. Capital punishment is necessary and it's not performed to accomplish peace. It's the consequences of Saddam's pre meditated actions that involve orchestrating kidnap, torture and killing with no mercy and for the crimes he's accused and found guilty of.  It is possible that it may very well contribute to a better possibility of peace and security in that region of the world.            but maybe not  8)

Capital punishment is necessary


No its not, and I don't think its very Christian to support it.

No its not, and I don't think its very Christian to support it.


In this case, it wasn't, it was Islamic.

He was tried under the regulations of the Iraqi Penal System, and was punished according to their laws.

BTW..isn't it the bible that says "an eye for an eye"????

Interesting...according to a quick review I did a few minutes ago on good old Wiki, both the Quran and numerous Hadith forbid suicide.  Makes me wonder how the extremists are justifying suicide bombers and the promise of 72 virgins in the name of Allah when Allah has forbidden it??

Jim Jones, anyone???

I always wonder what people are thinking when they make fun of the 72 virgins thing. It seems religiously insensitive to me. Because some extremist Musllims do awful things its okay to be disrespectful of other's religions? I don't think it is.

I have never been able to debunk the "72 virgins" myth.  It does seem to me it is overplayed in the Western press.  We get a sort of cartoon version of suicide bombers and their motivations.  Their motivations are less religions than political.  "Suicide bombers," for the most part, are more educated and wealthier than the average M.E. Muslim.  I'm not saying they do a good thing.  I am saying we got a "Indians-on-the-warpath" type of image of suicide bombers, in which "72 virgins" is part of a colorful stereotype. 

Well, this thread isn't about the virilance of Islam.. I just happen to find inherently violent religions worse than mildly violent religions. I'm totally digging the eastern religions.. they've got their heads screwed on right. I dig the Sikh idea which is like.. 'Yo, don't be a prick.. people will probably give you props occasionally'.

Violence in the name of religion has politics behind it, not spirituality.  The Eastern religions are no exception.  You can interpret religious texts to justify violence or to justify peace-making. 

The Old Testament may be the most violent religious text in the human history.  However, you can find many passages in the O.T. condemning violence, such as "Thou shalt not kill."

just goes to show you how the bush family treats its business partners.  ::)

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/14/sign10.gif
Karma+1  4U

Interesting...according to a quick review I did a few minutes ago on good old Wiki, both the Quran and numerous Hadith forbid suicide.  Makes me wonder how the extremists are justifying suicide bombers and the promise of 72 virgins in the name of Allah when Allah has forbidden it??



Um, theres a difference between just committing suicide and sacrificing yourelf in battle.

Not that I'm trying to justify what the terrorists do, but martyrdom is MOST DEFINITELY a part of Islam. Where the exremists are wrong is thinking that its okay to kill innocents in an act of martyrdom, which is something Rasulullah(prophet) Muhammad forbid.

I guess my former faith is showing in through in my posts about this subject. :P

Exactly it's a ridiculous idea that I've only seen touted by the extremist terrorist Muslims anyway.

Yes, the "72 virgins" thing is ridiculous.  The trouble is the Sean Hannitys of the world repeat it over and over and the ignorant millions get the idea all Muslims buy into that.  It's like trying to use some hateful words of Louis Farrakhan to say all African-Americans hate Jews.  Lies and ignorance are the fuel of bigotry.

In this case, it wasn't, it was Islamic.

He was tried under the regulations of the Iraqi Penal System, and was punished according to their laws.

BTW..isn't it the bible that says "an eye for an eye"????


Yes but like almost anything the Bible says, there are verses which say the opposite. However "an eye for an eye" is really an element of the Old Testament. Isn't the New Testament what Christians should be following? I thought Jesus came to do away with the old laws. ???


Yes, the "72 virgins" thing is ridiculous.  The trouble is the Sean Hannitys of the world repeat it over and over and the ignorant millions get the idea all Muslims buy into that.  It's like trying to use some hateful words of Louis Farrakhan to say all African-Americans hate Jews.  Lies and ignorance are the fuel of bigotry.


Well Max there is a precedent for it in the Hadiths. The difference is in the details. The extremists are not theologically wrong for thinking that houri will be a reward in Jinnah, even the Qur'an mentions them. Its just that they think they'll be rewarded for killing innocents, which is against Islam. Make no mistake, the concept of martyrdom, dying for Allah, is very much a valid part of the history and theology of Islam. Where they're wrong is thinking killing the innocents is okay, thats not martyrdom. Martyrdom would be if a kafir(non-believer) had you tied up and told you to renounce Allah or die, and you refused*. Or if a group kept continually attacking your people for believing in Islam, if you were to go out and fight them for the right to leave peacefully and practice Islam and die in that fight, that would be martyrdom. Strapping C4 to yourself and blowing up a bus of innocent people isn't martyrdom.

*this is not required of a Muslim. Islam says that it is acceptable in this type of situation to tell them differently as long as you stilll have Tawhid(the belief of monotheism) in your heart

Hey you know, maybe I should start an "Ask me anything about Islam" thread, and put my vast knowledge of the din(religion) to use. Not to brag but I probably know as much about the religion as any layman(of course religious scholars know much more than me).

Yes but like almost anything the Bible says, there are verses which say the opposite. However "an eye for an eye" is really an element of the Old Testament. Isn't the New Testament what Christians should be following? I thought Jesus came to do away with the old laws. ???

Well Max there is a precedent for it in the Hadiths. The difference is in the details. The extremists are not theologically wrong for thinking that houri will be a reward in Jinnah, even the Qur'an mentions them. Its just that they think they'll be rewarded for killing innocents, which is against Islam. Make no mistake, the concept of martyrdom, dying for Allah, is very much a valid part of the history and theology of Islam. Where they're wrong is thinking killing the innocents is okay, thats not martyrdom. Martyrdom would be if a kafir(non-believer) had you tied up and told you to renounce Allah or die, and you refused*. Or if a group kept continually attacking your people for believing in Islam, if you were to go out and fight them for the right to leave peacefully and practice Islam and die in that fight, that would be martyrdom. Strapping C4 to yourself and blowing up a bus of innocent people isn't martyrdom.

*this is not required of a Muslim. Islam says that it is acceptable in this type of situation to tell them differently as long as you stilll have Tawhid(the belief of monotheism) in your heart

What cracks me up is the fun FOX News has calling Yusef Islam (aka. Cat Stevens) a jihadist, and by that they mean terrorist.  It's because he's a Muslim, and because of what he didn't say 18 years ago!  Go back to 1989.  I. Yusef was giving a talk at a college in Britain.  A student asked him about the Ayatollah's fatwa against Salman Rushdie.  Yusef quoted the Koran as declaring, "If any man defames the Prophet, then he must die."  Yusef explained how an extremist could extract this quote and use it to justify killing Rushdie.  The press declared Cat Stevens supported the Ayatollah Khomeini

And yes, Saddam did carry a Koran to the gallows and he did praise Allah before he was hanged.  However, Saddam's atrocities, for which I cannot imagine Allah forgiving him, were perpetuated for political power, not for the greater glory of Islam.  Saddam was a Sunni Muslim.  The factions of Shia and Sunni appear religious, but at their core hey are political.  Saddam did not create these divisions.  They existed hundreds of years before Saddam was even born.  Fair to say Saddam took advantage of these conflicts and played favorites, but again, I would say that's more political than spiritual. 

It was not the teachings of Islam that drove Saddam's savage political career.  Saddam took his lessons from Joseph Stalin, not Mohammed.  Some Muslim Uncle Joe was, huh?  Of course, the two never met.  Stalin died when Saddam was in his teens.  What Saddam did was use Stalin's "playbook" of killing all foes and their families, crushing dissent with terrifying brutality, administering an omnipresent secret police force, and elevating himself to a God-like stature.  And of course, there's the moustache.
::)

  We afforded Saddam the easiest way out.  He should have been assigned a life of hard labor, poverty, obscurity, and hopefully reflection... 

  His death will accomplish nothing for peace...


Karma to you Davester!

Imagine my shock when I found out today that this had happened. Most of you know I shy away from the news so this definitely came as a big blow to me!

Although I agree with 'an eye for an eye' in this situation as many have said, we have ultimately turned Saddam into a Martyr who will be worshipped/studied for centuries to come.  That being said, I also understand that our keeping him alive in solitary etc.. would weigh heavy - because as tax payers who do you think would be footing the bill? That is of course assuming that he would be brought to the US as trying to keep him in Iraq would be foolish!

My concern now is the welfare of those boys & girls still over there trying to help maintain and further establish Iraq as a Democratic Country. Will this aid them in their mission or hinder them further? It is pretty much a civil war right now with our troops caught in the middle, however pulling them out would only aid in the Muslims and Shiites and what other religious factions are there destroying one another. You may say "that would be perfect" but then who would be left to blame for the mess?? The US! As always because we have positioned ourselves as The World Police - it unfortunately appears we are still going to be stuck in the Middle East for years to come. Won't surprise me one bit if they actually turn the current rotation to Iraq into a Duty Station ...  as they have done with several in Korea.

It was extremely disturbing to watch. It really freaked me out. They had a translation with it on CNN, and supporters of Muqtada al-Sadr were there chanting his name at Saddam "Muqtada! Muqtada! Muqtada" and it all seemed like a slimy revenge killing. Here were fanatical supports of another madman who would not be much better than Saddam if he were to get ahold of the reigns of power, gleefully watching the death of a madman they didn't support.

Its certainly nothing like Nuremburg. In many ways that was the beginning of international aw. Trying this under Iraqi law was bad idea IMO, he did not get a fair trial. In Germany this would have been like us allowing the German communists to form a new government and try the Nazi war criminals themselves. In that type of enviroment, with rival fanatics in charge of dispensing justice to one of their enemies(also a nutball), it doesn't seem like it would be POSSIBLE for it to be fair.

And my uncle brought something up I hadn't thought about. In Hussein's Iraq, he had the legal powers to do the things he did. They were terrible and dispicable acts... but if they were not against the law when he committed them, were the charges really legitimate?

The whole thing is unsettling, and I think its only going to worsen the situation in Iraq.

And my uncle brought something up I hadn't thought about. In Hussein's Iraq, he had the legal powers to do the things he did. They were terrible and dispicable acts... but if they were not against the law when he committed them, were the charges really legitimate?

The whole thing is unsettling, and I think its only going to worsen the situation in Iraq.


Are you saying that Saddam should have been walking free then?  ???

Are you saying that Saddam should have been walking free then?  ???


If the charges don't have a legitimate legal basis, then they don't. Its not a pleasant thought, but if thats the way it is the law should be followed.

This isn't a question of "should have".

If the charges don't have a legitimate legal basis, then they don't. Its not a pleasant thought, but if thats the way it is the law should be followed.

This isn't a question of "should have".


Maybe he should have been tried under international law instead, then there would be a definite basis.

Maybe he should have been tried under international law instead, then there would be a definite basis.


I think so. Because international law would always apply. Due to the regime change there is legitimate reason to question the legal legitmacy of the charges under Iraqi law. Then again they probably knew if they had he'd be sitting in The Hague right now, not in a box. They were probably pretty determined to wack him.

And my uncle brought something up I hadn't thought about. In Hussein's Iraq, he had the legal powers to do the things he did. They were terrible and dispicable acts... but if they were not against the law when he committed them, were the charges really legitimate?

The whole thing is unsettling, and I think its only going to worsen the situation in Iraq.


So basically, when our President is in charge then they shouldn't be impeached or tried and found guilty of anything either because they were in charge, therefore it is their laws that they aren't breaking? Come again?

Show me where it is/was written in Iraqi Law that says ..."you cannot do anything against Saddam or anything wrong ever, but Saddam can kill you if it pleases him because he is having a bad day or you didnt succumb to his preferences or if he is just having a bad day and feels like killing..." because that is basically what you are saying. That ALL the killings he did were within his right because he was in charge and they were his laws!!!!!!

Sick!!!

And rednecks too.


And fat people, and people who live in trailer parks

So basically, when our President is in charge then they shouldn't be impeached or tried and found guilty of anything either because they were in charge, therefore it is their laws that they aren't breaking? Come again?



The thing is in that Saddam's Iraq, as head of the state, he did have the legal right to order the things he did. That was a different government of course and now the laws are different in Iraq. The point my uncle brought up is how can you prosecute someone for something that was not illegal for them to do at the time they did it? Is that legitimate? I'm not saying it isn't for sure.


Show me where it is/was written in Iraqi Law that says ..."you cannot do anything against Saddam or anything wrong ever, but Saddam can kill you if it pleases him because he is having a bad day or you didnt succumb to his preferences or if he is just having a bad day and feels like killing..." because that is basically what you are saying. That ALL the killings he did were within his right because he was in charge and they were his laws!!!!!!

Sick!!!


It doesn't say that under the CURRENT Iraqi laws. However a different set of laws applied in Iraq when he committed these attrocities.

Yes, technically, he probably should not been charged under Iraqi law. But that is only under Iraqi law. International law is an entirely different ballpark and thats what I'm saying. He should not have been tried under Iraqi law, he should have been tried under international law. There is no way he got a fair and impartial trial.

Don't get me wrong, I don't feel sorry for ol' Saddam. However this incident disturbs me because it seems to be indicative of a frightening and unpromising trend in Iraq, that the violent political murders and revenge killings of the past are still a part of the political culture in this new government. I think in the end this will only be one of  the many factors that sets the "new" Iraq on a dangerous and destructive path (again) and further drives a wedge between Shia and Sunnis, and puts our boys in further danger. As you said yourself.

Yes, technically, he probably should not been charged under Iraqi law. But that is only under Iraqi law. International law is an entirely different ballpark and thats what I'm saying. He should not have been tried under Iraqi law, he should have been tried under international law. There is no way he got a fair and partial trial.

Don't get me wrong, I don't feel sorry for ol' Saddam. However this incident disturbs me because it seems to be indicative of a frightening and unpromising trend in Iraq, that the violent political murders and revenge killings of the past are still a part of the political culture in this new government. I think in the end this will only be one of  the many factors that sets the "new" Iraq on a dangerous and destructive path (again) and further drives a wedge between Shia and Sunnis, and puts our boys in further danger. As you said yourself.


Right but as Brian has already said - either way the guy was going to get it! International law would have found him guilty on ALL counts, not just 1982 or whatever freakin year it was! Internationally, you wouldnt have been able to find an unbiased jury nor an unbiased judge. International law, correct me if I am wrong, deals with war crimes and crimes against other countries etc. so my understanding would be he couldn't have been tried internationally at all!

As for setting the "new" Iraq on a dangerous path..... erm... it is already there and has been there from the beginning in 2003! It is a civil war now that many fail to recognize. No matter the outcome, our BOYS & GIRLS are always in danger.

In this case, it wasn't, it was Islamic.

He was tried under the regulations of the Iraqi Penal System, and was punished according to their laws.



  The sham trial in a court system brought to power under an enemy occupation.  When will those who aided Saddam be brought to justice?  The French?  The British?  The Russians?  The AMERICANS..?



BTW..isn't it the bible that says "an eye for an eye"????



  No, it's from the Codex Hammurabi... 

Um, theres a difference between just committing suicide and sacrificing yourelf in battle.


SACRAFICING YOURSELF IN BATTLE!?!!

Oh.. oh, tell me... tell me you did not just say that! Tell.. me.. you did not just say that.

You call getting on to a bus and blowing yourself up a sacrafice in the battle? The battle against what, 12 year old school children? The age old conflict against the elderly? The 100 years war between Islam and people who don't own their own cars?

You ever see what happens when somebody sets off a bomb? Have you actually ever seen a child vaporised by the explosion? Have you seen the devestation that causes? Have you had to pull nails out of your leg?

Oh yes Alex, they die gloriously in battle.. they die with their boots on, how glorious indeed.

"Be optimistic, happy and calm, show no fear or anxiety, smile at the face of God and your reward shall be eternity. Only warriors shall be justified, everything is for him, you must not comfort the enemy before you kill him, strike as champions at the heart of non-believers, strike above the neck and on all extremeties, voyage to the point of no-return for almighty God, God will give vision to the faithful, when you reach Ground Zero you will have destroyed the enemy - The Great Satan."

SACRAFICING YOURSELF IN BATTLE!?!!

Oh.. oh, tell me... tell me you did not just say that! Tell.. me.. you did not just say that.

You call getting on to a bus and blowing yourself up a sacrafice in the battle? The battle against what, 12 year old school children? The age old conflict against the elderly?


No, I don't. Take the time to read my post carefully.

No, I don't. Take the time to read my post carefully.


Maybe it could be an idea to actually think about what you say.

Talk about contradictory.

Maybe it could be an idea to actually think about what you say.

Talk about contradictory.


Look, dude. I didn't say it was glorious. If you actually took the time to read my post, you would know I said that its against Islam to kill innocent people. I was talking about legitimately dying in battle, martyrdom, not terrorism. I'm not talking about suicide bombers, I'm talking about times when jihad has actually been legitimate. Such as when Muslims are being oppressed and not allowed to practice their faith, like in the early days of Islam when the Muslims were forced to flee Mecca to Yathrib in the north because the Quraish whom controlled Mecca did not want to tolerate their religion. The Muslims had to fight for their freedom to practice Islam in Arabia. There have been other examples of this in history, such as when the Muslims were attacked by the Mongol hordes(who sacked Baghdad, bringing about the end of the golden age of Islam as al-Andalus was descending into conflict at that time as well). I said that suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism are NOT legitimate acts of martyrdom, like the examples I gave.

I think you owe me an apology.

Look, dude. I didn't say it was glorious. If you actually took the time to read my post, you would know I said that its against Islam to kill innocent people. I was talking about legitimately dying in battle, martyrdom, not terrorism. I'm not talking about suicide bombers, I'm talking about times when jihad has actually been legitimate. Such as when Muslims are being oppressed and not allowed to practice their faith, like in the early days of Islam when the Muslims were forced to flee Mecca to Yathrib in the north because the Quraish whom controlled Mecca did not want to tolerate their religion. The Muslims had to fight for their freedom to practice Islam in Arabia. There have been other examples of this in history, such as when the Muslims were attacked by the Mongol hordes(who sacked Baghdad, bringing about the end of the golden age of Islam as al-Andalus was descending into conflict at that time as well). I said that suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism are NOT legitimate acts of martyrdom, like the examples I gave.

I think you owe me an apology.


No, I don't think I do.

You say in one breath that 'sacrificing one'self' in battle is perfectly acceptable, but in the next breath say that spilling the blood of the innocent is wrong. Tell me where the battles are now? On the streets, yes?

I'm really impressed by your knowledge of Islamic history, wether through earnest learning or wikipedia I don't know and don't care though, at the moment it's irrelevant.

So is Jihad legitimate now? I mean, there are many who would say that they're being oppressed because we're doing our best to improve their lot in life by exporting some of these wonderful western innovations to them.

No, I don't think I do.


Then I'm beginning to really not regret my decision to cut off our friendship.


You say in one breath that 'sacrificing one'self' in battle is perfectly acceptable, but in the next breath say that spilling the blood of the innocent is wrong. Tell me where the battles are now? On the streets, yes?


Sacrificing one's self in battle for a legitimate cause and not killing innocents=martyrdom.

Terrorism=not martyrdom.

I cannot say it  more clearly.

I mean, there are many who would say that they're being oppressed because we're doing our best to improve their lot in life by exporting some of these wonderful western innovations to them.


  Sorry to jump in...

  I can't tell if you're serious, but it is true...

  I don't remember any alleged good intentions at the start, but the selling points of this war were:

  - Elimination of "imminent threat" to USA (false pretext)
  - Elimination of "regional threat" of Iraq (shaky pretext)
  - Elimination of tyrant Hussein (rational but unreasonable pretext)
  - Reduction of suffering of Iraqi people (noble and deserved pretext)
  - Establishment of "democracy" in Iraq (noble but dubiously-founded pretext)

  As to the two noble pretexts - there were still other ways.  There were a couple of noble intentions in there; if I had any faith in this administration or the American people to make those noble intentions real, I might have supported this rogue action against Iraq.  But how can we bring what we don't have to anyone?  Here I refer to democracy.  So in accepting that true democracy ain't coming to the neighborhood, I guard against the idea that a wealth-driven, Westernized republic will bring real freedom to Iraq or anywhere else...

www.dictionary.com

martyr: