[lit-ideas] Re: Max Boot

  • From: "Simon Ward" <sedward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 19:30:36 -0000

Ignoring, for a moment, the multiple questioning of 'who cares', let's deal 
with the more substantive (but less enlightening) questions posed.

"Did the courts decree that the Shia militia carry out the execution?"

The fact that the Shia did carry it out should answer question. Unless the US 
military (responsible for guarding Saddam in between court sessions) took it 
upon themselves to hand him over to the militia, then it was certainly the 
Iraqi judiciary. 

"Were there alternatives?"

Another pointless question. The alternative would have been to impose the 
sentence impartially and with a certain amount of dignity.

"Was the judiciary under Iraqi control?"

We'd all like to think so, but somehow I doubt it. Depending on what you mean 
by Iraq - assuming that expression to denote a free and impartial legislature - 
I'd guess no.

"You say Saddam was verbally taunted and insulted - was that worse than you are 
verbally taunting and insulting me or better?"

It's clear you haven't seen (and heard) the alternative video of the execution. 
If you had you'd understand that it's not just me saying it. As for how that 
compares with my 'insults and taunts', I'd say I'm quite a few parsecs behind 
Ann Coulter.

"It took place during the Muslim Hajj and the Sunni Eid, you say?  Did it also 
take place at the end of a legitimate trial?"

Yes to the first question, arguably not for the second though I'm no expert on 
the legality or otherwise. Expert witnesses have questioned it however.

"And you note that the US military was responsible for the guarding of the 
living Saddam.  Was that before he was turned over to the Iraqi Judicial system 
for trial?  I fail to see why this should interest anyone.  The US military has 
guarded virtually everything in Iraq at one time or another."

Let's do this one slowly. The US military was guarding Saddam between court 
sessions and, we must assume, following sentences. Saddam's body was flown in a 
US helicopter to his home village. This strongly suggests that the US military 
handed him over to his executioners and as such knew who those executioners 
were. Why is this important? Because it further suggests that the US military 
and by implication the US government were aware of the timing and circumstances 
and allowed it.

I'll ignore the next question since it strays into stupidity.

"You probably quantify the holding up of an execution.  If a certain number 
will be made angry by the execution of someone, then the execution shall not 
take place - even if it means we renege on our telling the Iraqis they have 
control over their own courts, government, etc and are trying to turn 
everything else over to them as quickly as possible?"

You haven't quite grasped what's happening in have you. Some say there is a 
civil war in Iraq. If it isn't civil war, it's very close. Shias and Sunnis are 
fighting one another. Many are being killed. The Iraqi government, through its 
judiciary, have tried Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, on crimes against humanity. They 
found him guilty and sentenced him to death. He appealed and it was turned 
down. The sentence was carried out. Trouble is the judiciary chose members of 
the Shia militia as the executioners. They chose a date coiniciding with the 
Sunni Eid, right in the middle of the Muslim Hajj. The executioners taunted 
Hussein, shouting Muqtada, referring to Muqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shi'ite 
cleric who is a main backer of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the Shi'ite 
leader who pushed for a quick execution of Saddam. The event was recorded on a 
mobile phone and distributed on the internet, an altogether different video 
than the one provided to the regular media. 

None of this fits the actions of a free and impartial Iraqi government and 
judiciary. It makes the execution out as a partisan act carried out by one side 
against another. Quite possibly, probably in fact, it will result in violence 
and death.

One point suprises me Lawrence. You seem to think that the Iraqi government is 
free and independent of US involvement. That just because an act is carried out 
by the Iraqi government it exonerates any responsibility on the part of the US 
government. If you can say honestly that you really believe that, then, as I 
see it, you'll have lost any of the credibility you believe you have.

So who Cares? Who indeed Lawrence, because these are just Iraqis we're talking 
about. They're hardly human are they. More fool those on the left who care if a 
few people die as a result of a stupid and ludicrous act, an act that, with a 
bit of foresight might have been turned into a demonstration of independance 
and impartiality. Do you care if Iraqis die Lawrence? Do you?

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Lawrence Helm 
  To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 12:51 AM
  Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Max Boot


  Simon:

   

  You have made a series of assertions on a subject I'm not particularly 
interested in.  You imply that intelligence would comprise my accepting your 
assertions unchecked.  Blind acceptance of unsupported assertions is not well 
known as a sign of intelligence.

   

    1.. For example, did the courts decree that the Shia militia carry out the 
execution?  Were there alternatives?  Who should have done it?  Who cares? 
   

    2.. Was his death filmed like some of the deaths Saddam filmed?  Again, who 
cares? 
   

    3.. Was the judicial system under Iraq's control?  If so, who cares whether 
it meets your standards of impartiality? 
   

    4.. You say Saddam was verbally taunted and insulted - was that worse than 
you are verbally taunting and insulting me or better? 
   

    5.. It took place during the Muslim Hajj and the Sunni Eid, you say?  Did 
it also take place at the end of a legitimate trial?  
   

    6.. And you note that the US military was responsible for the guarding of 
the living Saddam.  Was that before he was turned over to the Iraqi Judicial 
system for trial?  I fail to see why this should interest anyone.  The US 
military has guarded virtually everything in Iraq at one time or another.  
   

    7.. You say the whole event can only incite further hatred between the Shia 
and Sunni?  You imply that we shouldn't allow the Iraqis to execute one of the 
worst criminals in their history because it might make someone mad?  Is that 
what you are saying?  Shall we make this a principle:  Execute no one if it 
will make someone mad.   In response to this possibility I did a Google search 
to find out who was being incited thus far.  So far it's a few relatives and 
some people from his home town.  When is the rest of the incitement supposed to 
take place. 
   

  7.a.  But you probably mean a lot of someone's.  You probably quantify the 
holding up of an execution.  If a certain number will be made angry by the 
execution of someone, then the execution shall not take place - even if it 
means we renege on our telling the Iraqis they have control over their own 
courts, government, etc and are trying to turn everything else over to them as 
quickly as possible?  

   

  7.b.  Tell you what went perfectly?   Has someone established a standard for 
perfection in Iraq?  

   

  7.c.  However, I will say this.  In the war against Militant Islam, the Bush 
& Blair administrations has done surprisingly well.  On the one hand we have 
the destruction of the World Trade Center.  We have also Osama's speeches 
indicating that he believed the US too timid, too afraid of the loss of life to 
mount an effective counter to his Islamist ideals.  Osama joined others in 
declaring war against the West, ala Sayyid Qutb.  Others joined in taunting and 
insulting the US and Britain.

   

  7.d.  The US agreed that we were at war and eliminated Afghanistan as a 
Militant Islamic threat

  7.e.  Influenced Pakistan to quit supporting Militant Islam and support us 
instead

  7.f.  Influenced Libya in to abandoning its nuclear weapon program

  7.g. Removed one of the Icons of Militant Islam, Saddam Hussein by defeating 
his army and arresting him

  7.h. Saddam when turned over to Iraqis was executed.

   

        8.  The U.S. and its allies have a good deal to be proud of.  The 
gauntlet was thrown by militant Islam and was picked up and responded to.  We 
have done much better than Militant Islam has done.  They operated out of 
prejudice and ignorance.  They had a low opinion of our abilities and will have 
learned (if they can somehow avoid reading Leftist analyses of these matters) 
that things are not going well for them.  And what shall we do now?  Shall we 
listen to the Leftist Chicken Littles who cry and tell us we must surrender for 
we have been defeated when all the rest of the world including our enemies can 
see that we have not?  Or shall we somehow learn who it is we're fighting, and 
how we must combat them?   Oh some of us know, but too many don't - or as in 
the case of the Leftists, won't.

   

  Lawrence

   

   

     

   

   

   

   


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of Simon Ward
  Sent: Monday, January 01, 2007 3:38 PM
  To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Max Boot

   

  Let's try it really slowly Lawrence, your attempt at unintelligence is just 
too convincing.

   

  1. It's not the fact of Saddam's death that's at issue, but the manner of it.

   

  2. It was carried out by the Shia militia.

   

  3. His death was filmed in a similar manner to some of the Islamist 
executions.

   

  4. It took place with no attempt at judicial impartiality.

   

  5. He was verbally taunted and insulted.

   

  5. It took place during the Muslim Hajj.

   

  6. It took place on the Sunni Eid (Thanks Judith).

   

  7. The US military (responsible for guarding the once living Saddam) must 
have given him over to his executors just as they subseqently received his body 
from them.

   

  8. The whole event can only incite further hatred between the Shia and Sunni.

   

   

  Now tell me it went perfectly.

Other related posts: