Good-bye, Saddam.

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by thejdw

Whats your view on diana's death?

I was not there. I did not view it.

[James_Potter]

Originally Posted by thejdw

Whats your view on diana's death?

Or Elvis's?
Or my grandma's?

[KlownLife]

Originally Posted by john_childs

When Bush and Blair order the torture killing of people using methods that involve piano wire, acid, or meat grinders.

So it's ok to go unpunished for murdering people as long as its not creatively barbaric? I know you didn't say that exactly but it certainly seems like you support that view.

[yoopers]

Originally Posted by Gilby

Hmmm... pictures of him before his death with guys wearing masks, nothing afterwards. I'll believe it when I see it.

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/scp_v3/...61492&src=news

[bcwheelriderguyhehehehehe]

Now there is osama. We'll get him. or if they find him in a hole they should cave it in almost let him sufficate the kill him.

[Naomi]

Originally Posted by cathwood

But you can't just kill someone because the alternatives are inconvenient.

That makes us/you/the Iraqi's murdering b***ards too.

Well, on the contary, the Iraqis have just clearly demonstrated that they can do exactly that.
As for being "murdering b***ards", that surely is a matter of personal or of governmental opinion. If the Iraqis acted within their laws, as they appear to have done, then according to those laws it is not murder, and it might even be said that justice is a more appropriate word. Different cultures have different laws, different moralities, different religions.
What right have you to say that your opinion, of an act carried out quite legally under different laws, in a different culture, is that the act was factually one of murder?
You may hold such opinion, but your holding such does not make it factually correct.
Precede your statement with "I think..." and fair enough.

Nao

[Jerrick]

Well, for all you guys who wanted a vid, here it is. Real, not the best, but it shows it, very hectic at the end. Its a 3GPL file, if your have problems watching it, just get real player. The free edition.

[thejdw]

Originally Posted by Gilby

I was not there. I did not view it.

No I mean you are douting that saddam was hanged, so I was wondering if you think diana was murdered?

[Mikefule]

There are few communities where there is a genuine consensus that homicide is always wrong. That's why we have heroic soldiers, and lynch mobs, and a campaign to bring back the death penalty .

Murder is simply a homicide described by someone who disapproves of it.

• Saddam murdered his enemies; he would say he liquidated them.
• The Iraquis executed him; his supporters would say they murdered him.
• We killed thousands of innocent civilians in the invasion; some of their families would say we murdered them.

In all cases, the victim is dead.

If you accept in principle that the death penalty is sometimes justified, then it is harder to think of a better example of someone who deserves it. The first word of that sentence was "if".

Saddam used the death penalty to get rid of his enemies; it follows that he had personally demonstrated his approval of the death penalty. We can be sure that he always knew that if he were overthrown, he would probably be executed or assassinated.

It follows that the death penalty had no deterrent effect. He knew that the risk of execution or assassination is very high for murderous tyrants, and made the choice to become and remain one despite that.

Has it deterred anyone else? A bomb blast killing about 30 people, timed to coincide more or less with the announcement of his death suggests not.

Has it brought back any of his victims? No.

Has it cleansed the country of a unique monster and provided a clean start? No, because Saddam was not the individual who personally drilled through people's legs, or put their feet in acid, or poured petrol on them and lit them. There are hundreds and thousands of sadistic torturers and murderers in Iraq, in both communities. Saddam didn't make them torture and kill; he made it possible for them to do so. Every single one of them could have made a different choice - just like the Nazi concentration camp torturers.

So:

• The deterrent effect didn't work - because he knew the risk and did the crimes.
• The "example to others" has already been shown not to have worked.
• Not one victim has been brought back to life.
• The country has not been cleansed.

All that has happened is that a martyr has been created - for those who wish to see him as a martyr. Yet another martyr: another pointless stupid death among hundreds of thousands of other pointless stupid deaths. Another reason for someone else to feel justified in killing a stranger.

It doesn't matter how many people get killed, you will never eradicate stupidity; you will not eradicate hatred by killing people who hate.

[Jerrick]

Originally Posted by Mikefule

Has it deterred anyone else? A bomb blast killing about 30 people, timed to coincide more or less with the announcement of his death suggests not.

Its only been a day after his death, you cant strongly base this until some time has passed.

It would be like buying 661s, putting them on, crashing on your uni right after you put them on, and get a small bruise, then saying the 661s had no effect on protecting you.

Not the best analogy, but im sure you know what I mean.

[mz]

And what will happen now ?

[Mikefule]

Originally Posted by Jerrick

Its only been a day after his death, you cant strongly base this until some time has passed.

Fair point, but I think my error was to quote too small a sample of the available data, rather than to base a conclusion on inadequate data.

Try this expanded version of the argument:

Throughout recorded history, most societies that have existed have had the death penalty for murder and certain other offences. All of those societies have had to apply the death penalty repeatedly. In almost every case that someone was executed, he had committed his crime knowing that the death penalty would apply in the event of him being caught and convicted.

In the UK, we used to hang pirates and leave their bodies on display. It didn't stop people becoming pirates. It just made the pirates kill all the witnesses without mercy.

Throughout recorded history, there have been tyrants. Indeed, peaceful transition of power following a democratic election is a relatively new idea, and is still confined to only a part of the world. The traditional ways of deposing a tyrant have always been assassination, or a coup d'état, followed by judicial execution. In a tiny minority of cases, internal or external exile has been allowed.

Tyrants have traditionally dealt with this threat, not by modifying their behaviour to bring their enemies into the fold, and by proceeding to rule by consensus and consent for the benefit of all, but by murdering their opponents. A famous example is the Night of the Long Knives.

We have always had tyrants, and even if the favourable trends of the last century or so continue, it is likely to be a few centuries more before there are no more - especially in the middle east and Africa.

Throughout recorded history, when a powerful leader has been deposed, those who espoused his cause have either continued to fight "in his name", or have found a new, equally bad leader.

There are of course exceptions, but there are sufficient data from around 3,000 years of western history, and 5,000 years of eastern history to support the general propositions that:

• The death penalty does not deter tyrants.
• Applying the death penalty to deposed tyrants does not put an end to the killing.

Seneca said to Nero, no matter how many people you kill, you can never kill your successor. ONly in this way was Seneca able to prevent a complete bloodbath. Years later, Nero sentenced Seneca to death, purely because he feared his influence.

There was little about Saddam that was unique. Other tyrants, dictators or despots who ruled by fear, torture and murder include: Amin, Caligula, Ceaucescu, Hippias, Hitler, Nero, Noriega, Stalin... need I go on?

Socrates was put to death because the state feared him. At the time, Athens was ruled by no fewer than 30 tyrants!

Those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are condemned to repeat them. The tyrants' mentality is that he doesn't learn from history that tyrants usually come to a sticky end; instead, he learns that he needs to be more ruthless than his predecessors to extend his time at the top.

[cathwood]

Originally Posted by Naomi

Precede your statement with "I think..." and fair enough.

Nao

Sorry, I assumed that everything that I said was what I think unless I quoted someone else as thinking/saying it. I'm also presuming that your thread is what you think, although you don't actually say it.

[cathwood]

Originally Posted by Mikefule

So:

• The deterrent effect didn't work - because he knew the risk and did the crimes.
• The "example to others" has already been shown not to have worked.
• Not one victim has been brought back to life.
• The country has not been cleansed.

All that has happened is that a martyr has been created - for those who wish to see him as a martyr. Yet another martyr: another pointless stupid death among hundreds of thousands of other pointless stupid deaths. Another reason for someone else to feel justified in killing a stranger.

It doesn't matter how many people get killed, you will never eradicate stupidity; you will not eradicate hatred by killing people who hate.

Ok Mikefule may be a great and intelligent guy but if he knows this, then so do other people (maybe not the majority of the people who post on this forum because they are young and only just beginning thier education and have much to learn) but perhaps the people who killed Sadam.

So why did they do it and why do so many approve and even enjoy it? I THINK (based on the knowledge that I have) that it is to create a scapegoat. People feel themselves cleansed of thier own 'evil' and the world's 'evil' by getting rid of an 'evil' dictator. We can rejoice and feel good about the world and ourselves. At least until the next time.

Because clearly, like Hitler, Sadam could not have carried out his attrocities without considerable support in his own and other countries. Are all his supporters going to be killed too?

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by cathwood

So why did they do it and why do so many approve and even enjoy it? I THINK (based on the knowledge that I have) that it is to create a scapegoat. People feel themselves cleansed of thier own 'evil' and the world's 'evil' by getting rid of an 'evil' dictator. We can rejoice and feel good about the world and ourselves. At least until the next time.

It's about closure for those. Whether real or imagined.