igloo 3 Posted July 23, 2003 Share Posted July 23, 2003 Is it ok to "celebrate" the killing of Saddams sons. Sit down and think about it. While it is good that they may no longer be a threat, whatever that is, what are we coming to when we boisterously celebrate the killing of another human?? Link to post Share on other sites
minus 1 Posted July 23, 2003 Share Posted July 23, 2003 Hell, yeah... Link to post Share on other sites
nzlegend 1 Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 Quote: Originally posted by igloo: what are we coming to when we boisterously celebrate the killing of another human?? They were not "humans", they were sick evil monsters. belonging to the species "homo sapiens" does not = human. Being human is a privilege and an honour and you are judged by your actions and contributions to society. If you renege on your obligations to humanity and commit such heiness atrocities as these 2 did, then you do not deserve to be considered human. Hence they are dead and those who suffered so horrifically directly as a consequence of the actions of Uday and Qusay should celebrate in glee the slaying of two inhuman monsters. You are too liberal with the use of "human" if the question is changed to "homo sapien" then maybe we should excercise caution at celebrating someones death, but those are the consequences of their (uday & Qusay) actions, they made their bed and now they are sleeping in it. I feel no sympathy whatsoever for those who get their come uppance. Link to post Share on other sites
proudtobegay 0 Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 They are not human??? ?? Link to post Share on other sites
nzlegend 1 Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 Quote: Originally posted by 21C: They are not human? "Having human form or attributes as opposed to those of animals or divine beings" found this definition in the dictionary. What those two accomplished is worthy of animal status. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 I'd much rather evil dictators and their offspring were offered an amnesty and a safe haven in California in return for going peacefully. The costs in human suffering would be far less than the current 'method'. kamoshika, how many people have died at the hands of the coalition in order to achieve this result over which you gloat? Link to post Share on other sites
nzlegend 1 Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 Gloat? I am not gloating, I said those who suffered at the hands of the Husseins can celebrate if they wish, I never mentioned my glee. Regardless, when inhuman monsters get whats coming to them I feel no sympathy. You are most certainly correct on the morals and cost in human suffering and entire philosphy of the war/campaign/shenanagans. It is most certainly not good but this post was started about celebrating the death of someone evil. I dont wont to argue the deeper issues of the current Iraq situation but I was commenting purely on the question at hand, exclusive of the background issues. For example, should we celebrate when a "Hitler" or a "Stalin" or an "Ivan the terrible" for the matter is killed. I know if I were a Jew in 1945 I would have been celebrating heartily the demise of Hitler. Link to post Share on other sites
Chancey 0 Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 Ocean 11, point taken but try realism. They would not have accepted amnetsty and gone peacefully. They would not have found peaceful residence in California. The delightful picture you're trying to paint is very abstract. OK, Picture Uday cruising around a free man in a Jag up and down Santa Monica Blvd. Money to burn, a good safe guy to call your neighbor. Pappa Hussein kicking it at his Beverly Hills pool with a new nickname 'Uncle Saddy', shopping at Wallmart on weekends while keeping a low profile. Qusay becomes a pharmacist. Meanwhile back in Iraq the people feel safe that the tyrants have started a new 'good' life in California. Reformed and repenting. All is well. What a wonderfull world. The war sucked but killing those 2 will not be a source of much mourning - the topic of this thread. Link to post Share on other sites
nzlegend 1 Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 Quote: Originally posted by Ocean11: I'd much rather evil dictators and their offspring were offered an amnesty and a safe haven as an aside didnt Saudi Arabia, well before the war offer Saddam safe haven? correct if I am wrong. And GWB gave him and his sons a final ultimatum. They had their chances, they were given the opportunity to go peacefully, but they were never going to leave. off hand I can think of one brutal dictator who took amnesty, Idi Amin has been kicking it in Saudi since 1979. Link to post Share on other sites
neversummer 0 Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 evil or not, how many innocent lives have the coalition taken to get these two?? include the war in afghanistan also and and the future carnige from all the unexploded bombs and you have a lot of people and no one to bring before a judge. they are part of the picture but not the prize..as with most of the unfortunate events that lead to war, the dictator/evil person/whatever you call them , is never captured. as for the safe haven point, maybe they didnt take it up but there have been many sth american war lords/dictators who have taken refuge in the US on the backs of the CIA nd FBI. let us remember that 25 years ago, saddam and his crew were all part of the CIA's plan to stabilise the middle east..didnt that backfire nicely.. Link to post Share on other sites
Weegeoff 0 Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 When Hollywood distorts the truth in the film You will find 3 Rambos and Ramboette storming a compound with 200 or more Arabs in it. They had them surrounded, they had nowhere to go.All they had to do was wait.A typical shoot first and ask questions afterwards. Nothing has changed from the lynch mob attitude. What the US government did was murder. The biggest mass murderers the world has ever known were allowed a fair trial at Nuremburg. They were even allowed to pick their own Lawyer providing he didnot belong to the Nazi party. Which is a lot more than the poor sods at Guantanamo bay are allowed to do. The US used to tell the world that the Eastern Bloc had show trials. Now you dont get a trial {just shot}or as in Guantanamo a secret trial without independent legal representation Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 kamoshika and Chauncey, I'd say you're the ones who are unrealistic. First, if you seriously want to get a dictator out without bloodshed, you wouldn't do it in the way the US/Saudi attempted it (on the part of the US, it wasn't ever in good faith anyway). Secondly, you wouldn't let them go about in Santa Monica anyway. The simple unwillingness even to consider alternatives to the continuing issue of ending dictatorships shows a very primitive level of culture. Who's up next for 10 TOW 'misles' through the stucco? Link to post Share on other sites
yodel 0 Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 Of course they were blimmin humans, thats just plain ridiculous. Not nice ones, granted. Terrible even. But come on, shape up. Link to post Share on other sites
Glen Falting 0 Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 Kamo - you're spot on. Evil does exist and sometimes it takes the shape of a human. Isn't there a saying, that "for evil to prosper, good people need to nothing"? How many people died removing Saddam? How many poeple died in the weeks, months or years before he was removed? The world is full of examples of people losing their lives for a greater good, even where they don't have a choice and maybe quite innocent. Yes it is tragic that innocent people died in the destruction of Saddam's regime, but it was a small price to pay. Link to post Share on other sites
Glen Falting 0 Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 ...and another thing, the extra-judicial actiivities of the US Gov (which is actually more of a concern) is a different matter altogether from the killing, in a firefight of those two animals. Link to post Share on other sites
mogski 0 Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 CIA, US army, FBI, I?? etc. All these places charged with protecting the US from threat. They all seem to have thier own little super elite killing secret killing force, assasin specialists etc. why didn't they just send them on in to put an end to Saddam and friends? Has anyone considered this? If Mr. Hussein was such a PIA to the US and all wouldn't this seem the easiest, less blood shed way to the end? Link to post Share on other sites
Glen Falting 0 Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 I wonder if the fear of retaliation in kind discourages them. Otherwise it would be a perfect solution to a couple of problems in our part of the world as well. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 > Yes it is tragic that innocent people died in the destruction of Saddam's regime, but it was a small price to pay. That's because YOU didn't have to pay it. I don't think you'd be quite so dismissive of the price if you exercised some imagination intensively for 5 minutes. All that denying that they're human serves to do is to make people feel better about the killing of innocents - itself a monstrous and evil act. Link to post Share on other sites
jared 0 Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 Quote: "for evil to prosper, good people need to nothing"? Are you saying that the US government is good? I think that both sides are bad. Only one side is pretending to act for the good of the people (to manufacture consent) but is in fact hoping to gain control of their money. Link to post Share on other sites
Glen Falting 0 Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 I agree, it is very easy to say that the price paid in peoples' lives is worth when you're not the one being killed. I wasn't suggesting otherwise. But does that mean, no action should be taken? Does it mean that for the sake of our sensitivities, we should let more peope be killed and tortured? Not taking any action would have simply perpetuated further tragic deaths. There are all sorts of issues surrounding the US invasion of Iraq and this isn't the place to discuss them. I'm only saying that sometimes, the cost of innocent lives are worth it and on balance, Iraq and the destruction of Saddam and his sons is probably one of those situations. After 9/11 many places, including the UK and the US instigated a policy of having fighters patrol over major events in case of another airline hijacking, with the intention of shooting down the jet to prevent it being used to kill more poeple. As incredabily hard as it would be to order it done, I expect most poeple would argee that if it is going to save a lot more lives, than it is probably worth it. A la Iraq. Our world is full of examples of human lives been traded off against a greater good. Link to post Share on other sites
jared 0 Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 Dehumanisation is one of the psychological steps necessary to kill another human. It takes various forms including rape and torture and was seen on a mass scale just before and during the holocaust. It’s amazing how much more interesting it was to gatecrash my girlfriend’s psychology lectures than attend my own Surveying ones. Link to post Share on other sites
Glen Falting 0 Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 Jared, the removal of saddam's regime is a good thing, how it was brought about by the US is probably not a good thing. It is hard to credit the degree of misinformation and cynical manipulation that was involved. Remember that movie "wag the dog"? It would be funny if it wasn't so serious. I reckon the world would probably be a better place if the global community was a little more willing to step in and remove corrupt and criminal regimes. most of Africa would be on the list and a couple of places in Asia as well. Link to post Share on other sites
damian 0 Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 The concept at play is wrong. When did anyone give the US the right to be in another country with +130k troops and have them get around purposely attempting to kill those that oppose them? Did bush not declare the war (as a result of illegal invasion) over???! Since when is it against international law to oppose the USofA????? With so much fire power, the best the US forces could do was blast the shit out of that house and kill everyone. Sounds like the solution of a dumb giant to me. The death of these two guys is not in itself all that bad, if they died in a car crash, no one would be upset. But the activities of US forces and foreign policy is way out of line. America is currently making an total ass of itself and gathering a lot of enemies along the way. They have dug themselves a hole, a bigger hole than they were in before. America already has bases in too many countries and they are establishing even more very strategic ones by force as we speak. The day they set one up (under the guise as our military friends) in Australia, I will .... dunno, what will I do?? ...... I will continue to live in a world increasingly dominated by the most aggressive and powerful military force of all time, a force that is given its instructions by a government that feels it knows the ultimate truth and will enforce it by the point of a gun. This is world dominance painted as a fight for freedom and democracy! And the cheer leader is Bush, the American political system!! For gods sake, we are being over run by a small set of people who very few people trust. When is the world going to wake up?? Go home America and stop killing people in other countries, perhaps then they (bin laden et al) will want to stop killing you. Link to post Share on other sites
jared 0 Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 Quote: Our world is full of examples of human lives been traded off against a greater good. Our world is also full of examples of human lives being traded for the good of the killer, greater or not. I take some comfort in the fact that empires never last. The Mongoles, the Romans, every major power in history has come to an end and I suspect the US will be the same. It would be interesting to know how it will finally happen. I suspect it may have somethiing to do with China and the world running out of oil. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 > Does it mean that for the sake of our sensitivities, we should let more peope be killed and tortured? At least two attempts were made to kill Saddam using large ordnance. Neither attempt killed him, and they reportedly killed several others, including children. Those people were not killed or tortured by Saddam. They were killed by 'us'. There's no getting around that fact. We can say 'Saddam killed them', but that would make us into liars, besides being killers. Ruthless killing of innocents is what makes Saddam and his sons evil and non-human right? As for "for evil to prosper, good people need to do nothing", I have been asking my elected representatives to modify UK government policy in Iraq. What have you good people been doing (apart from excusing your part in the carnage with non sequiturs)? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts