Friday, December 29, 2006

Saddam Hussein - Dead. Hanged (not hung, mind you) this morning.

34 comments:

Anonymous said...

'Hanged' is correct

Dhruv said...

I know, thats why I pointed out that hung is not.

Dhruv said...

And I'd appreciate if you'd leave a name as well.

sid said...

wasnt me

Anonymous said...

i hope bush is happy i mean i noe that saddam pasted bush Sr's picture on a tile and made everyone walk over it and spit on it but i mean takin his life fer that is plain and hard inhumanitarian

The Alpha Male said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The Alpha Male said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The Alpha Male said...

Lets not make Saddam look like some matyr who died fighting a totalitarian regime. He was a ruthless dictator who comitted despicable acts and orchestrated the mass murder of thousands of people.Any court of law would have given him the maximum sentence.

I don't personally like Bush but Saddam deserved what he got.His life wasnot taken out of contempt for "pasting bush Sr's picture on a tile" but for the "murder of 148 people, torture of women and children and the illegal arrest of 399 others in Dujail".In our hurry to start Bush-bashing lets not forget all the inhuman acts that Saddam committed.

The Alpha Male said...

I also feel that USA should have known better than to allow the footage of Saddam's hanging to be broadcast as it depicts him as a prisoner of war fighting till his last breath instead of the coldblooded killer that he was.

RG said...

Yeah, it was a bit of injustice.

It was the revenge of the US in a way. What he did did not matter, just had to die...

He was hanged but he did not "hanged" he "hung".

:P

And I have some points to make to the alpha male:

Its sunni vs shia everywhere, mister, and the "murder of 148 people, torture of women and children and the illegal arrest of 399 others in Dujail" was but a part of this. Killing saddam did not end this raging battle, it never could.

If the US is such a humanitarian, why don't they send troops to take down all the other countries' grievances too?

Its because the leaders there don't openly oppose Bush and also because the US can't get free oil there.

US stealing oil from Iraq, for free, after creating tandem there.

Is that justice?

Dhruv said...

I dont deny that the bugger was guilty, its just that I feel the trial was rushed. Also, imho, the death sentence is kind of barbaric and should be abolished. Such medieval practices are best left in the middle ages.

The Alpha Male said...

Ahem ahem...well RG
FYI After an unsuccessful bid on Saddam's life in Dujail, "Saddam Hussein ordered his special security and military forces to carry out a reprisal attack against the town, which resulted in a total of 150 of the town's men being killed in the attack or executed later, a number of which were boys 13 years of age.[1] 1,500 people were also incarcerated and tortured, while other residents, many of them women and children, were sent to desert camps."
It had nothing to do with Shias Vs. Sunnis, It was Saddam's personal revenge.Please get your facts straight.
Also,i never said that USA is a humanitarian or that the war was justified, all i am saying is thatsaddam deserved what he got.

I,also, agree with dhruv that the trial was rushed and it had its fair share of flaws and the death penalty is barbaric but it should be reserved for some cases like for the guy in Noida who raped and killed soo many children.

Dhruv said...

That case really makes my skin creep. And it also bothers me that there isnt any obvious motive.
Organ trade? Child porno king?
Or is the feller deranged/psychotic?
Really is a bizarre case. And had it not been for gross negligence by the Police force, alot of these "serial" deaths could've been avoided.

Dhruv said...

One more question concerning Saddam and Dujail.
Lets say theres an assassination attempt on Abdul Kalam and he suspects Pakistan was behind it. He goes ahead and declares war on Pakistan. During this war, thousands of people are killed. After the war is over, could you try Abdul Kalam for genocide?
I was just wondering when the Commander-in-Chief of the security forces can be held responsible for deaths during times of war.
If you think about it, an attempt on the President's life is a time of emergency and the army *can* be called in to stabilize the situation. Can any deaths during this time be labeled murder, and can the President be held responsible?

Dhruv said...

mass murder, not genocide, is the word I was looking for.

RG said...

The US is nosey.
And it interferes where there is benefit for itself.

The Alpha Male said...

Declaring war on a country is different from what saddam did, he took out his ire on innocent people including women and children.The right course of action should have been to find the people responsible for the assasination attempt and try them in court instead of killing everyone in the place.

The Alpha Male said...

He was not at war with the people of Dujail.

Dhruv said...

Hmm. I get your point.

RG said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
sid said...

dhurv i'm going to send you a present very soon
hint:- not big but your blog needs it
:)

sid said...

the noida dude was a crazy... i read in the paper that there was some russian guy who killed 52 people and they only caught him after some 20 odd years.... norman bates is a saint compared to these fella's

Dhruv said...

Norman Bates? Whos Norman Bates? Must check wikipedia.

Dhruv said...

While searching wikipedia for Norman Bates, I discovered he's based on this dude Ed Gein. Now that guy is insane. I mean really insane.

sid said...

Norman bates is the dude from psycho for those of you who havent checked on wikipedia ( though you should have).

Dhruv said...

Wikipedia is god.

Abhishek said...

Apple called it the iPhone after all.

Dhruv said...

Hehe. Yeah. Makes me (and alot of other people) look like a fool.
But I still have no idea how they managed to, I thought Cisco owned the trademark.

RG said...

it did and according to G it sued apple

gursartaj said...

thats what the ZDnet newsletter said
G

Dhruv said...

Oh yeah, Cisco did sue Apple.

Gizmodo reports right here



This is the complete filed by Cisco against Apple


I hope Cisco sues the crap out of Apple.

Dhruv said...

I mean "This is the complete Complaint filed by Cisco against Apple."

Abhishek said...

Oh well, they can still change it to iFone. Apple can name it just about anything, iPod doesn't really mean music, does it?

Dhruv said...

Yeah, thats true. And iPhone isnt even a very good name in the first place.
iChat? iMobile?
I wonder.
Or maybe: iPod Mobile.
Dunno. I'll leave it to Apple.