Day of Infamy

Day of Infamy

#juan

#1Jan 2nd, 2007

30 December 2006 - a day of infamy
Gabriele Zamparini, The cat's dream30 December 2006 will be remembered as a day of infamy. In violation of international law and human decency, the quisling government of occupied Iraq, a puppet, sectarian regime installed by the American occupation and supported by Iran, assassinated the legitimate President of the Republic of Iraq, Saddam Hussein. It’s been reported that after his execution the assassins shouted: "Long live Muqtada, Long live Muqtada" [Moqtada Al-Sadr] It’s also been reported that Saddam Hussein was tortured before his execution and his body was mutilated afterwards. Another source tells us: "The video shows no blood on Saddam’s face and body, TV aired video of the body showed blood, cuts and bruises on the face." (...) After the initial silence on the real scale of the horror in Iraq, when the Iraq Body Count figures were used even by the antiwar movement in spite the apocalypse was already known and after the ongoing silence on the responsibility of the sectarian militias in mass murdering and ethnic cleansing, this other silence on the lynching of Saddam Hussein raises once again fundamental questions on the role of the Western left and the anti-war movement and forces each of us to an unpleasant but honest and necessary reflection. If a better world is possible, it starts at home.....

Comments?

Sassylassie

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 2nd, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

30 December 2006 - a day of infamy
Gabriele Zamparini, The cat's dream30 December 2006 will be remembered as a day of infamy. In violation of international law and human decency, the quisling government of occupied Iraq, a puppet, sectarian regime installed by the American occupation and supported by Iran, assassinated the legitimate President of the Republic of Iraq, Saddam Hussein. It’s been reported that after his execution the assassins shouted: "Long live Muqtada, Long live Muqtada" [Moqtada Al-Sadr] It’s also been reported that Saddam Hussein was tortured before his execution and his body was mutilated afterwards. Another source tells us: "The video shows no blood on Saddam’s face and body, TV aired video of the body showed blood, cuts and bruises on the face." (...) After the initial silence on the real scale of the horror in Iraq, when the Iraq Body Count figures were used even by the antiwar movement in spite the apocalypse was already known and after the ongoing silence on the responsibility of the sectarian militias in mass murdering and ethnic cleansing, this other silence on the lynching of Saddam Hussein raises once again fundamental questions on the role of the Western left and the anti-war movement and...
Quote has been trimmed, See full post:

The devil is dead, may his soul burn in everlasting hell. Should Bush of invaded Iraq, most likely NO but hindsight is called hindsight for a reason. Comparing Bush to Saddam is streaching the boundries of the Anti-US posters. This man tortured men woman and children he created a country devoted to his image. He gased those he preceived as his enemy, we will never know all the evil deeds of this man. China is supporting a puppet regime as evil as Saddam was in the Sudan where's the world outrage and hatred towards China? It's all about oil in Somalia, why the silence from the anti-US posters. France just bombed the ****e out of Somalia, and I've read articles that blame Bush and the US it's time for all posters to stop this Raging Hatred of America if Canada ever needs big brother I wouldn't blame the US if we were told to kiss her bum.

#juan

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 2nd, 2007

Far be it from me to try to defend Saddam Sassy. I think the point of this little article is that the reasons for the illegal invasion of Iraq by the U.S. and the coaltion of the cowed, had no basis in fact. There was no threat to the U.S. or Britain that warranted blowing the country to rat$hit. There are at least a half dozen other Arab countries with leaders who are probably as bad as Saddam Hussein. The so-called Saudi royal family beheads a couple dozen people every month and God only knows how many people just disappear. Should we not also be holding these regimes up to the light? Saddam's trial and execution was a complete farce....a lot like the invasion of Iraq in the first place. Was it worth a million Iraqi deaths to get rid of Saddam? I don't think it was. American type democracy? Who asked for it? In any case, that democracy will not be coming any time soon. The real costs to America for their meddling in Iraq are just beginning to show. It will get a lot worse.

Daz_Hockey

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 2nd, 2007

Gotta agree Juan, and who exactly says the "American" model is in any way better anyway?.

There are far worse dictators in the world than Saddam, so why exactly did they pick on him?......

Doesn't make sense when you consider Iran are very happy about this result. Nope, it's a joke to suggest that this was in any way good winning over bad, I have friends who are iraqi, no, they are against Saddam, but come on, this one stinks.

Daz

#juan

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 2nd, 2007

Just a small point Daz

It just might have legitimized the stupid war if Saddam had been made to stand before the World Court in Belgium . The problem was that Bush pulled out of that Court several years ago and it might have been embarrassing if Saddam had explained some of his dealings with the U.S. in front of a world audience. No?

Daz_Hockey

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 2nd, 2007

He had massive dealings with Bush and Thatcher. I cannot believe anyone can be stupid enough to think this was a good thing. Perhaps "stupid" is a harsh word, but come on.....Get real, Saddam posed as much threat to the US as my smelly socks. And when exactly has the US, or any country gone to war for humanitarian reasons and not self-preservation?.

Not the US for sure, I think a certain Canadian Nato General can testify to that one.

Zzarchov

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 2nd, 2007

So what your saying Juan, is that its ok to topple Iraq.

But no one should have done it without fixing the whole world at once? He's dead , big deal and whether or not he's the worst doesn't matter.

#juan

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 3rd, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov

So what your saying Juan, is that its ok to topple Iraq.

But no one should have done it without fixing the whole world at once? He's dead , big deal and whether or not he's the worst doesn't matter.

Not at all. Do you think it was worth killing a million Iraqis to depose Saddam? I doubt if any Iraqis think it was worth it either. Yeah saddam is dead.....Who did it help? Certainly not the million or so dead Iraqis. I wonder if oil was involved.........

I think not

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 3rd, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

30 December 2006 - a day of infamy
Gabriele Zamparini, The cat's dream30 December 2006 will be remembered as a day of infamy. In violation of international law and human decency, the quisling government of occupied Iraq, a puppet, sectarian regime installed by the American occupation and supported by Iran, assassinated the legitimate President of the Republic of Iraq, Saddam Hussein.

That was enough for me to stop reading.

#juan

#10

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 3rd, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

That was enough for me to stop reading.

So, ITN thinks the illegal invasion of Iraq and the killing of over a million Iraqis by bombing or brutal sanctions was completely okay, and that the lynching of saddam Hussein by the puppet government that the U.S. military has installed, was fine too. These latest puppets were installed much like the U.S. helped to install Saddam Hussein years earlier. No matter how many gingoes they invent, like, "Operation Iraq Freedom", it was still an illegal invasion and a lynching. Funny how the world never heard Saddam Hussein's story about his dealings with the U.S, but that would have been an embarrassment, wouldn't it?

missile

#11

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 3rd, 2007

Don't let those rightwingers beat you done,Juan. As I agree with your comments 100%, my position is that we are among the enlightened and not the propogandized. There is some video of Saddam taken under the scaffold and it shows just how barbaric hanging really is.

jimmoyer

#12

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 3rd, 2007

Oy veh....

arrrrrrrrrrrrghhhhh.

(shaking head)

I think not

#13

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 3rd, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

So, ITN thinks the illegal invasion of Iraq and the killing of over a million Iraqis by bombing or brutal sanctions was completely okay, and that the lynching of saddam Hussein by the puppet government that the U.S. military has installed, was fine too. These latest puppets were installed much like the U.S. helped to install Saddam Hussein years earlier. No matter how many gingoes they invent, like, "Operation Iraq Freedom", it was still an illegal invasion and a lynching. Funny how the world never heard Saddam Hussein's story about his dealings with the U.S, but that would have been an embarrassment, wouldn't it?

It'll be a cold day in hell before you develop enough grey matter between your ears to comprehend how i THINK, let alone you telling me what I think.

The so called puppet government you and your ilk spew has been endorsed by your benevolent United Nations. But to mention that would be an embarassment, wouldn't it?

Your constant reference to the Iraq invasion as illegal, literally turns my stomach, because you repeat what you are dictated. The fact Canada participated in the Serbian war rolls right over your Liberal head. If Iraq is illegal, then so was Serbia. But to mention that would be an embarassment, wouldn't it?

Saddam's dealings with the US? Check your sources, you'll find the US had minimal participation in the weapons buildup of Iraq. Funny how most countries that armed Iraq had socialist governments. But to mention that would be an embarassment, wouldn't it?

International court? The International Court has no jurisdiction in Iraq, Iraq never signed on the dotted line. Yet the leftists are screaming for International court intervention. An illegal act. But to mention that would be an embarassment, wouldn't it?

I am aching to find something original coming out of you. I'm sure it will be a long wait.

jimmoyer

#14

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 3rd, 2007

Good points ITN.

It's fascinating how both sides think the other is brainwashed.

L Gilbert

#15

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 3rd, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyer

Good points ITN.

It's fascinating how both sides think the other is brainwashed.

Yup. Hypocracy and idiocy are rampant.

#juan

#16

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 3rd, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

It'll be a cold day in hell before you develop enough grey matter between your ears to comprehend how i THINK, let alone you telling me what I think.

When you haven't got an argument, resort to personal insults

The so called puppet government you and your ilk spew has been endorsed by your benevolent United Nations. But to mention that would be an embarassment, wouldn't it?

I called it a puppet government because that is what it is

Your constant reference to the Iraq invasion as illegal, literally turns my stomach, because you repeat what you are dictated. The fact Canada participated in the Serbian war rolls right over your Liberal head. If Iraq is illegal, then so was Serbia. But to mention that would be an embarassment, wouldn't it?

If the Iraq invasion wasn't illegal, why was it neccesary to put out all the BS about weapons of mass destruction, or whine about how Iraq was such a threat to botb the U.S. and Britain?

Saddam's dealings with the US? Check your sources, you'll find the US had minimal participation in the weapons buildup of Iraq. Funny how most countries that armed Iraq had socialist governments. But to mention that would be an embarassment, wouldn't it?

The U.S. role in arming and assisting Iraq in their war against Iran are well documented.

International court? The International Court has no jurisdiction in Iraq, Iraq never signed on the dotted line. Yet the leftists are screaming for International court intervention. An illegal act. But to mention that would be an embarassment, wouldn't it?

An international court might have lent respectability to that mess but then all the dirty laundry would have been made public.

I am aching to find something original coming out of you. I'm sure it will be a long wait.

Objecting to the Iraq invasion could hardly be original....most of the world objected to that invasion.

wallyj

#17

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 3rd, 2007

What is the difference between a legal war and an illegal war? The U.S. went into Iraq because saddam would not let the weapons inspectors inspect for weapons as agreed upon to stop the first gulf war. BTW,was that legal or illegal? Please,do not call the invasion of Kuwait an attempt by saddam to annex Kuwait as I have heard mentioned a few times on cbc.

#juan

#18

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 3rd, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by wallyj

What is the difference between a legal war and an illegal war? The U.S. went into Iraq because saddam would not let the weapons inspectors inspect for weapons as agreed upon to stop the first gulf war. BTW,was that legal or illegal? Please,do not call the invasion of Kuwait an attempt by saddam to annex Kuwait as I have heard mentioned a few times on cbc.

Absolute nonsense. The inspectors were doing fine. Saddam had already complied. There were no weapons of mass destruction. This should be obvious by now to anyone who reads the news. The inspectors were ordered out by the U.S. so they could get the invasion started. Read what Scott Ritter(an American, and chief weapons inspector for the UN) says about this subject.

CDNBear

#19

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 3rd, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

Absolute nonsense. The inspectors were doing fine. Saddam had already complied. There were no weapons of mass destruction. This should be obvious by now to anyone who reads the news. The inspectors were ordered out by the U.S. so they could get the invasion started. Read what Scott Ritter(an American, and chief weapons inspector for the UN) says about this subject.

Gotta link?

wallyj

#20

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 3rd, 2007

I remember the UN caravans being sent across the country on wild goose chases. I remember saddam denying them access to sites where they wanted to look and telling them where to look. This is akin to telling the cop at your door with a search warrant that they can look anywhere but the basement. The real world doesn't work that way.I also remember some fellow named Hans Brilx (sp) as the chief UN inspector. Yes,the U.S. told them to get out because they were coming in,of course, that is what the good guys do.

L Gilbert

#21

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 3rd, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

Absolute nonsense. The inspectors were doing fine. Saddam had already complied. There were no weapons of mass destruction. This should be obvious by now to anyone who reads the news. The inspectors were ordered out by the U.S. so they could get the invasion started. Read what Scott Ritter(an American, and chief weapons inspector for the UN) says about this subject.

Right, inspectors searched and found nothing. The US searched after they invaded and found nothing but a few incapacitated bits of weapons.
The reasons the US gave for invading was not strictly to look for WMDs but was mainly because of the UN directives that Soddam Insane was bucking. I think the number was 14 of 20+. There were other reasons given besides those, as well.

--

--

--

Whether Junior was lying and hiding reasons other than those given is a subject up for grabs as is evidenced by the massive amount of guesswork availbale when one googles "Bush Iraq invade reasons".

Last edited by L Gilbert; Jan 3rd, 2007 at 07:17 PM..

wallyj

#22

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 3rd, 2007

It was Hans Blix who was the chief UN inspector.Thanks LG for not revising history to support an idealogy as is so often done. The fact that WMD's were not found does not excuse saddam's bravado which cost his country dearly. BTW,the number of Iraqi civilians killed by other Iraq's is much larger than those killed by the American troops.Another important fact lost on those who only think with the left side of thier brain.

Sassylassie

#23

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 3rd, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

Not at all. Do you think it was worth killing a million Iraqis to depose Saddam? I doubt if any Iraqis think it was worth it either. Yeah saddam is dead.....Who did it help? Certainly not the million or so dead Iraqis. I wonder if oil was involved.........

Well after much searching here is what I came up with for the body count: So where did the million total come from Juan? The website address is on the bottom to verify and I can post at least six pages from of a website that does a daily tally on innocents killed by Islamic Militants. Irag and else where on this planet.

The Real 2006
'Iraq Body Count'

Iraqi civilians killed this year by ISLAMIC Terrorists
16,791
Iraqi civilians killed collaterally in incidents involving Americans
(and Islamic Terrorists)
154*
Iraqis aren't
dying from war.
They are being murdered by
Islamic terrorists.
*Source: -- (includes civilians caught in crossfire who may have been killed by the terrorists

L Gilbert

#24

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 3rd, 2007

Just because the number of Iraqi killed by Iraqi may be larger than the Iraqi killed by the USA doesn't excuse the USA nor Bush for going in partially using false pretenses. Bush and Co. are no more righteous than anyone else.
The CIA have been giving the administration garbage info for an awful long time:
--

--

etc.

Besides that, one must remember that the US is not above bombing and shooting its "friends" even.

Gonzo

#25

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 3rd, 2007

The United States invaded Iraq because they supposedly had weapons of mass destruction. Then they hang Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity. It's hypocritical. You can’t invade a country on a lie, and then execute their leader for a different reason. He was a bad guy, but there are lots of leaders out there who commit crimes against humanity. We don’t see the United States invading North Korea, who admits to having nuclear weapons. China is guilty of crimes against humanity. Many African countries leaders should be overthrown. But what made Iraq different? Hmmmm.

L Gilbert

#26

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 3rd, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by Gonzo

The United States invaded Iraq because they supposedly had weapons of mass destruction.

That's one of many reasons given by the US admin. Certainly not the only nor the main reason.

Quote:

Then they hang Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity. It's hypocritical. You can’t invade a country on a lie, and then execute their leader for a different reason. He was a bad guy, but there are lots of leaders out there who commit crimes against humanity. We don’t see the United States invading North Korea, who admits to having nuclear weapons. China is guilty of crimes against humanity. Many African countries leaders should be overthrown. But what made Iraq different? Hmmmm.

Your guess is as good as anyone's. Besides the reasons Bush stated, as I said a while ago, there are lots of guesses as to what the "real" reasons were.

wallyj

#27

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 3rd, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by Gonzo

The United States invaded Iraq because they supposedly had weapons of mass destruction. Then they hang Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity. It's hypocritical. You can’t invade a country on a lie, and then execute their leader for a different reason. He was a bad guy, but there are lots of leaders out there who commit crimes against humanity. We don’t see the United States invading North Korea, who admits to having nuclear weapons. China is guilty of crimes against humanity. Many African countries leaders should be overthrown. But what made Iraq different? Hmmmm.

Once again,THEY INVADED IRAQ BECAUSE SADDAM WOULD NOT ALLOW THE UN INSPECTORS TO LOOK FOR WMD'S. I wrote that slow so it could be understood. I don't understand why people so readily buy into historical revisionism if it denigrates the U.S.A. Sure there is a few more leaders who should be swinging alongside saddam.So,does that mean the states could justify hanging that murderous thug by hanging a few more. I would support it but I have a hunch the layton lickers of the world would be smugly tsk-tsking into thier lattes. Saddam was executed for murder,not for anything to do with wmd's. He has killed thousands and thousands. He used to torture children in front of thier parents to get the parents to say what he wanted,and then execute the parents. But maybe we should have given him the benefit of the doubt.

L Gilbert

#28

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 3rd, 2007

Once again, the USA invaded Iraq for many reasons, get it? There was no single reason.

Either way, the USA is not without its faults by a long shot, nor is it the most evil outfit that ever tried being an empore any more than it is totally righteous.

I think not

#29

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 3rd, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

When you haven't got an argument, resort to personal insults

Next time don't put words in my mouth that are fueled by your pathetic bias

Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

I called it a puppet government because that is what it is

Yes of course, only Canadians are capable of holding honest elections, everybody else is a puppet to the US, even when endorsed by the UN, the EU and oh yeah, CANADA.

Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

If the Iraq invasion wasn't illegal, why was it neccesary to put out all the BS about weapons of mass destruction, or whine about how Iraq was such a threat to botb the U.S. and Britain?

Show me a single document that claims the Iraq War was illegal from any reputable international organization. The UN, ICC will do. If you can't, stop repeating bull****, you sound like parrot.

Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

The U.S. role in arming and assisting Iraq in their war against Iran are well documented.

By whom? Leftist news agencies? Where is this well documented data. You show me yours (unbiased source) and I'll show you mine.

Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

An international court might have lent respectability to that mess but then all the dirty laundry would have been made public

The ICC has no jurisdiction over Iraq or the US, which part of that can't you grasp?

Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

Objecting to the Iraq invasion could hardly be original....most of the world objected to that invasion.

Most of the world objected to the Serbian invasion. Thoughts?

Zzarchov

#30

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 3rd, 2007

About the "Legal" issue of war...

Exactly who decides these laws? who is the Sovereign world government? Its not the UN thats for sure, I never recall any nation deciding to let communist China define what they are and are not allowed to do.

Using terms like "legal" and "illegal" makes you sound mentally incapable and out of touch with the reality of the world. More accurate terms like "against conventions" would work better.