Shamik Das


Saturday, December 30, 2006

Going ... going ... hung!

"Tonight, Matthew, I'm going to be dead"

So long, farewell, I hope you burn in Hell!!!

For the unofficial video of Saddam's execution, check out The Phantom's website; and for the view from the other side take at look at "Iron" Mike's site and this well though out piece from stroppyblog.

As for gormless George, 'ol Galloway has dried the tears from his eyes and come up with this gut-wrenching drivel. We can but pray that some time soon he too will be held to account ...

9 Comments:

Blogger stroppybird said...

Thanks for the link, though praise from you will be the end of any left credabilty I still have ;-)

30 December, 2006 17:57

 
Anonymous gillesroy said...

Political designs behind Saddam’s execution :

1. Saddam is clearly the scapegoat for an international war syndicate, which includes many in our current political leadership, both in front and behind the scenes. Evacuating due process, controlling evidence and terrorizing the prosecution team were all par for the course in Saddam’s trial. A key reason for the speedy road to execution, was to eliminate a prominent player and key witness of this international criminal war conspiracy, thereby avoid further indictment of members of our leadership, many of whom have been accessory to Saddam’s actual crimes.

2. To « bookend » media fatigue and public indifference, re : Saddam’s trial. The whole point of the « trial » was to deliver a quick public execution, and thereby feed the hunger for blood so brilliantly cultivated in Western public opinion. An execution gives sense of heightened drama, and inagurates the next round of intensified bloodshed in the region… and beyond.

3. Lastly, to make Saddam a martyr for (gasp!) sympathisers, thereby deepening chaos in the middle-east over a longer period of time. Certainly, the US-led war in Iraq can be called a success insofar as its central purpose has been to aid the spreading of chaos in the Middle-East.

30 December, 2006 22:06

 
Blogger Sham said...

At last, at long, long last - a conspiracy theorist has joined the debate!!!

Tell me, what's the story behind 9/11, the moon landings, JFK, ...

31 December, 2006 14:14

 
Blogger Sham said...

And while you're at it, how about Diana? ;)

31 December, 2006 14:15

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whilst I respect the fact that it was an Iraqi court that gave the verdict I can't help but snigger every time I watched the court hearings. The whole thing was an absolute joke: a clown court. I rarely say this, but Amnesty are on the money...

I'm also never one to go along with crazy theories... But you've got a point there mate. The court case was a complete joke.

01 January, 2007 05:33

 
Blogger Sham said...

I thought the whole idea of a trial was to come up with the RIGHT verdict.

Would you rather he had what you might consider a "fair" trial and was acquitted?

01 January, 2007 14:30

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, due process is what I believe in. It doesn't matter whether the verdict was correct but whether, after scrutiny, there was due process. The whole case was a complete joke.

In fact, because he committed these 'crimes' under Iraqi law when he was President, he's arguably not guilty no matter how awful the crimes were. If these were crimes against humanity, then why wasn't he tried in the Hague?

Just because 'the verdict' is correct doesn't mean that the trial should be exempt from scrutiny. Does this mean that because 'we' are certain that someone is guilty then we shouldn't bother having a trial at all?

01 January, 2007 18:12

 
Blogger Sham said...

For all that the fact remains that he was tried by an Iraqi court and handed down the sentence the citizens of Iraq - who, let's not forget, had to live under the rue of this tyrant - demanded.

"Due process" is not something that was accorded to anyone tried under Saddam's regime. Never!

Does this mean that because 'we' are certain that someone is guilty then we shouldn't bother having a trial at all?

No, I wouldn't say that - I'd just be annoyed, really annoyed if some scummy lawyer had managed to get him off on a technicality, as happens in courts all the time - the guilty walking free.

01 January, 2007 21:04

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"For all that the fact remains that he was tried by an Iraqi court and handed down the sentence the citizens of Iraq - who, let's not forget, had to live under the rue of this tyrant - demanded."

Yes, by an Iraqi court that changed judges every time their opinions conflicted with the government. Already that's a flawed process.

"Due process" is not something that was accorded to anyone tried under Saddam's regime. Never!

Your point? Does that mean we should emulate him?

"No, I wouldn't say that - I'd just be annoyed, really annoyed if some scummy lawyer had managed to get him off on a technicality, as happens in courts all the time - the guilty walking free."

You may be annoyed, but that's how a rule of law works.

03 January, 2007 20:18

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home