The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
"What are we executing him for again?"
"He executed thousands of others."
"Ah."
It would be utterly ridiculous to execute Saddam. On a very basic level, we would be executing him for executing others. Which is, at the very least, hypocritical. How we could justify that is beyond me. Sure, you may believe in "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," but how then are you better than the person you're punishing?
On another level, we would be executing him for executing others who don't agree with his political ideology. And we don't believe in executing people who don't agree with our political ideology. So because of this, we're going to execute someone who doesn't agree with our political ideology. Way to go, assholes.
If Saddam is executed, I really will laugh hard. While I'm watching the event on rotten.com, of course.
"He executed thousands of others."
"Ah."
It would be utterly ridiculous to execute Saddam. On a very basic level, we would be executing him for executing others. Which is, at the very least, hypocritical. How we could justify that is beyond me. Sure, you may believe in "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," but how then are you better than the person you're punishing?
On another level, we would be executing him for executing others who don't agree with his political ideology. And we don't believe in executing people who don't agree with our political ideology. So because of this, we're going to execute someone who doesn't agree with our political ideology. Way to go, assholes.
If Saddam is executed, I really will laugh hard. While I'm watching the event on rotten.com, of course.
Page:
I agree
I hope he gets some sort of lawyer type and brings up the good old relations with Iraq and the US in the past. Aye.
I hope he gets some sort of lawyer type and brings up the good old relations with Iraq and the US in the past. Aye.
Skarra wrote:
> One of the main reasons he was shown, was to prove to the people of
> Iraq/ the world that he had been captured. The same as with his sons.
> And there is a difference in parading US troops in front of a camera,
> and proving to the people that he'd been captured. It's a small
> difference, but its there. What was the alternative, just to say,
> 'We've got him, take our word for it'?
It would, some might argue, have been possible to not try to humiliate him while filming, but just, well, film him normally.
It's not a straight choice between making him look as bad as possible or not filming at all.
To reiterate, it's not to say he deserves better, just that it's a shame to see the coalition reduced to these kinds of stunts.
> One of the main reasons he was shown, was to prove to the people of
> Iraq/ the world that he had been captured. The same as with his sons.
> And there is a difference in parading US troops in front of a camera,
> and proving to the people that he'd been captured. It's a small
> difference, but its there. What was the alternative, just to say,
> 'We've got him, take our word for it'?
It would, some might argue, have been possible to not try to humiliate him while filming, but just, well, film him normally.
It's not a straight choice between making him look as bad as possible or not filming at all.
To reiterate, it's not to say he deserves better, just that it's a shame to see the coalition reduced to these kinds of stunts.
I am quite drunk so this might be horribly innacurate:
But wasn't Abu Hamza a British citizen and therefore exempt from being deported, especially to a country like Yemen? And then he was stripped of his British citizenship and the government tried to deport him, at which point he tried to appeal. AFAIK that's as far as this got. If the British government thought he was a genuine threat to our safety then presumably he would be locked up in Belmarsh without trial like other suspected terrorists.
Either way I think it's pretty unreasonable to generalise about the asylum system from one case.
> Mind you, there is a certain irony about a man condemning us and our
> way of life while happily living among us on state benefits.
Is that actually true? (Serious question.)
But wasn't Abu Hamza a British citizen and therefore exempt from being deported, especially to a country like Yemen? And then he was stripped of his British citizenship and the government tried to deport him, at which point he tried to appeal. AFAIK that's as far as this got. If the British government thought he was a genuine threat to our safety then presumably he would be locked up in Belmarsh without trial like other suspected terrorists.
Either way I think it's pretty unreasonable to generalise about the asylum system from one case.
> Mind you, there is a certain irony about a man condemning us and our
> way of life while happily living among us on state benefits.
Is that actually true? (Serious question.)
Why is Abu Hamza still here then, if there are no loopholes? What possible reason is there for us to allow him to continue living here?
Yemen have requested his extradition on terrorist charges, and his son - a *convicted* terrorist, no less - is also living here.
How can we moan about other countries not extraditing our wanted criminals to us, when we don't return the favour?
Are we still worried about them coming down on us about Human Rights? Italy recently kicked a bunch of them out and no-one whined at them.
Most Brits would love to see the back of him, and I'm sure 99.9% of the Islamic population here would also.
I suppose it makes it easier to keep an eye (ho ho!) on his activites, but I'll be damned if I can see why we should fund a cushy life for someone who'd happily see us all dead at the earliest opportunity.
Mind you, there is a certain irony about a man condemning us and our way of life while happily living among us on state benefits.
Yemen have requested his extradition on terrorist charges, and his son - a *convicted* terrorist, no less - is also living here.
How can we moan about other countries not extraditing our wanted criminals to us, when we don't return the favour?
Are we still worried about them coming down on us about Human Rights? Italy recently kicked a bunch of them out and no-one whined at them.
Most Brits would love to see the back of him, and I'm sure 99.9% of the Islamic population here would also.
I suppose it makes it easier to keep an eye (ho ho!) on his activites, but I'll be damned if I can see why we should fund a cushy life for someone who'd happily see us all dead at the earliest opportunity.
Mind you, there is a certain irony about a man condemning us and our way of life while happily living among us on state benefits.
I think the chances of that are slim, mainly because now that we have we one of most hardline asylum policies in the world 'leftie-loopholes' no longer exist in this country (if they ever did).
What's the betting he applies for asylum in the UK, and through some leftie-loophole, gets accepted?
After all, Captain Hook is still here recruiting for al Quaeda.
Hey, maybe they can be neighbours! Yeah, let's give them both luxury houses in Lambeth!
After all, Captain Hook is still here recruiting for al Quaeda.
Hey, maybe they can be neighbours! Yeah, let's give them both luxury houses in Lambeth!
Dr Duck wrote:
> unknown kernel wrote:
> It made me feel a bit
> queasy, to be honest, to see a man - whatever crimes he might have
> committed - being pushed around and filmed by the government for no
> other reason than to show that we CAN push him around. I thought it
> was totally unnecessary and counter-productive.
>
> Yeah, I can agree with that. Whatever his crimes, which of course far
> overshadow any slightly dodgy treatment, it's just a shame to see the
> coalition reduced to this.
> I was initially quite impressed when I heard no shots were fired in
> his capture, this undid all that.
>
> And I know the hypocracy has already been seen in America's treatment
> of prisoners they've taken, but once again my mind goes back to
> politicians crying 'no fair' at Iraq parading captured US soldiers on
> TV.
One of the main reasons he was shown, was to prove to the people of Iraq/ the world that he had been captured. The same as with his sons. And there is a difference in parading US troops in front of a camera, and proving to the people that he'd been captured. It's a small difference, but its there. What was the alternative, just to say, 'We've got him, take our word for it'?
> I don't have any sympathy with
> Saddam but it's easy to see how it could be created and Saddam
> turned
> from dictator to martyr, providing more recruits for Al Quaeda,
>
> Hmm. I'm not sure it'd cause people to move towards Al-Queda because
> of the differences betweent the two groups, but it's certainly easy
> to see how it might bolster other resistance groups active in Iraq.
Agreed.
> However, since he's probably quite happy about it all, his reaction
> could certainly be seen as evidence of his ability to deceive
> everyone with his actiong skills.
Well, how can you be sure that every time he speaks about WMD, he doesn't believe they exist?
My views:
Well, i'm against the death penalty. But, it's ok us all saying, give him a fair trial, do it outside Iraq.
It was the Iraqi's who really suffered, how do you think they'd feel if he was tried hundreds/ thousands of miles away. Also, how would other Arab nations see it, one of their leaders being tried by the west. It's a sure bet relations between the West & Middle East would take a huge knock.
Its Catch 22.
Try him in Iraq, annoy the international community for not giving him a fair trial.
Try him else where, and enrage the people of Iraq.
Only thing is, who'd take it worse, i think the Iraqi's.
> unknown kernel wrote:
> It made me feel a bit
> queasy, to be honest, to see a man - whatever crimes he might have
> committed - being pushed around and filmed by the government for no
> other reason than to show that we CAN push him around. I thought it
> was totally unnecessary and counter-productive.
>
> Yeah, I can agree with that. Whatever his crimes, which of course far
> overshadow any slightly dodgy treatment, it's just a shame to see the
> coalition reduced to this.
> I was initially quite impressed when I heard no shots were fired in
> his capture, this undid all that.
>
> And I know the hypocracy has already been seen in America's treatment
> of prisoners they've taken, but once again my mind goes back to
> politicians crying 'no fair' at Iraq parading captured US soldiers on
> TV.
One of the main reasons he was shown, was to prove to the people of Iraq/ the world that he had been captured. The same as with his sons. And there is a difference in parading US troops in front of a camera, and proving to the people that he'd been captured. It's a small difference, but its there. What was the alternative, just to say, 'We've got him, take our word for it'?
> I don't have any sympathy with
> Saddam but it's easy to see how it could be created and Saddam
> turned
> from dictator to martyr, providing more recruits for Al Quaeda,
>
> Hmm. I'm not sure it'd cause people to move towards Al-Queda because
> of the differences betweent the two groups, but it's certainly easy
> to see how it might bolster other resistance groups active in Iraq.
Agreed.
> However, since he's probably quite happy about it all, his reaction
> could certainly be seen as evidence of his ability to deceive
> everyone with his actiong skills.
Well, how can you be sure that every time he speaks about WMD, he doesn't believe they exist?
My views:
Well, i'm against the death penalty. But, it's ok us all saying, give him a fair trial, do it outside Iraq.
It was the Iraqi's who really suffered, how do you think they'd feel if he was tried hundreds/ thousands of miles away. Also, how would other Arab nations see it, one of their leaders being tried by the west. It's a sure bet relations between the West & Middle East would take a huge knock.
Its Catch 22.
Try him in Iraq, annoy the international community for not giving him a fair trial.
Try him else where, and enrage the people of Iraq.
Only thing is, who'd take it worse, i think the Iraqi's.
unknown kernel wrote:
> It made me feel a bit
> queasy, to be honest, to see a man - whatever crimes he might have
> committed - being pushed around and filmed by the government for no
> other reason than to show that we CAN push him around. I thought it
> was totally unnecessary and counter-productive.
Yeah, I can agree with that. Whatever his crimes, which of course far overshadow any slightly dodgy treatment, it's just a shame to see the coalition reduced to this.
I was initially quite impressed when I heard no shots were fired in his capture, this undid all that.
And I know the hypocracy has already been seen in America's treatment of prisoners they've taken, but once again my mind goes back to politicians crying 'no fair' at Iraq parading captured US soldiers on TV.
> I don't have any sympathy with
> Saddam but it's easy to see how it could be created and Saddam turned
> from dictator to martyr, providing more recruits for Al Quaeda,
Hmm. I'm not sure it'd cause people to move towards Al-Queda because of the differences betweent the two groups, but it's certainly easy to see how it might bolster other resistance groups active in Iraq.
> It's too
> easy, I think, for Bush to use this a bit of re-election triumphalism
> without thinking about the wider consequences.
Perhaps, and I'm sure we'll hear much more of Saddam's capture before the elections, but I was a little surprised by the reserved manner shown by Bush.
I know he'll be weary of, for a second time, claiming a victory only to be followed by mass killing of US troops, I know Saddam wasn't a threat anyway, and I know he didn't need to create any more of a specatle to get a huge reaction from his electorate, but he still surprised me.
However, since he's probably quite happy about it all, his reaction could certainly be seen as evidence of his ability to deceive everyone with his actiong skills.
Then again, if you construct all his actions this way, he can't do any right whatever happens...
> It made me feel a bit
> queasy, to be honest, to see a man - whatever crimes he might have
> committed - being pushed around and filmed by the government for no
> other reason than to show that we CAN push him around. I thought it
> was totally unnecessary and counter-productive.
Yeah, I can agree with that. Whatever his crimes, which of course far overshadow any slightly dodgy treatment, it's just a shame to see the coalition reduced to this.
I was initially quite impressed when I heard no shots were fired in his capture, this undid all that.
And I know the hypocracy has already been seen in America's treatment of prisoners they've taken, but once again my mind goes back to politicians crying 'no fair' at Iraq parading captured US soldiers on TV.
> I don't have any sympathy with
> Saddam but it's easy to see how it could be created and Saddam turned
> from dictator to martyr, providing more recruits for Al Quaeda,
Hmm. I'm not sure it'd cause people to move towards Al-Queda because of the differences betweent the two groups, but it's certainly easy to see how it might bolster other resistance groups active in Iraq.
> It's too
> easy, I think, for Bush to use this a bit of re-election triumphalism
> without thinking about the wider consequences.
Perhaps, and I'm sure we'll hear much more of Saddam's capture before the elections, but I was a little surprised by the reserved manner shown by Bush.
I know he'll be weary of, for a second time, claiming a victory only to be followed by mass killing of US troops, I know Saddam wasn't a threat anyway, and I know he didn't need to create any more of a specatle to get a huge reaction from his electorate, but he still surprised me.
However, since he's probably quite happy about it all, his reaction could certainly be seen as evidence of his ability to deceive everyone with his actiong skills.
Then again, if you construct all his actions this way, he can't do any right whatever happens...
One thing worth remembering though is that not all Arabs are Saddam fans either. He did after all go to war with Iran and Kuwait.
Blank wrote:
> With his head down that hole, I bet he felt a bit ostricised.
Disturbingly, that made me laugh.
> With his head down that hole, I bet he felt a bit ostricised.
Disturbingly, that made me laugh.
Page: