Bye bye Saddam

Jackson Monk · Post by **Jackson Monk** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 5:15 am

And good riddance

Post by **BlueChair** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 8:29 am

Yes, but was it worth it? I for one am not sleeping any more soundly at night.

Jackson Monk · Post by **Jackson Monk** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 9:01 am

Well, it feels a little like the operation to remove the tumour has allowed the cancer to spread.

However, I wasn't making an observation on the bigger picture....I just think that the world is a better place without men like him in it.

Mr. Average · Post by **Mr. Average** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 1:09 pm

Maybe it isn't the sleep of the priviledged that should be secured and satisfied by the end of this terroristic hatemonger. Might be better to ask the double amputee who dissented against Saddam and was placed in a woodchipper until his legs were slowed sheared away to stubs. Or the orphaned son whose family was nerve-gassed to an excuciating death under Saddams order.

That same nerve gas was intended for others outside of Iraq's borders. Funny thing, is that Iragis know it. Even today, interview after interview indicates that it was sanctions and inspections that curtailed the activity. So, how many Isreali's should have died before this is justified? How many other people had to be harmed before it was "worth it"? One? Ten? Twenty? How many should have died horrendous deaths before you feel adequately threatened in the comfort of your bed

Sleep well. If for one second you do not believe that the mission of Radical Islam does not include you, by virtue of your ethnicity and your status as an in fidel (can't talk or write your way out of that label...too late!) then you are simply delusional.

pophead2k · Post by **pophead2k** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 2:30 pm

Just my opinion, and not a pronouncement on how things 'should' be, but I don't believe in state sanctioned killing.

Post by **BlueChair** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 4:17 pm

So maybe they'll focus some more on finding Osama bin Laden now? I wonder of Rummy will make an appearance at Saddam's funeral:

alexv · Post by **alexv** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 5:23 pm

I've just read The New York Times report of the hanging, and it is a striking example of how reporting these days, even in a respected paper like The Times, distorts the news through the covert editorializing of the reporters.

Notice how in this report, the reporter skews the narrative to create a heroic portrayal of Saddam. I assume the reporter was not a witness to the event but is relying on reports of witnesses. We are never told which witness says what, but the overall impression created is one of a "heroic" death, and the Times' narrative doesn't miss a trick in its effort to present Saddam's death as "heroic". Now, I don't care if in an Editorial or in a subjective piece they pull this off, but it should not be done in what is presented to the reader as a strict report of the proceedings. I will upper case the passages where the reporter does his thing and add my comments.

Saddam Hussein NEVER BOWED HIS HEAD [as befits a heroic figure, of course] , until his neck snapped.

â€œDOWN WITH THE TRAITORS, THE AMERICANS, THE SPIES AND THE PERSIANS [nice lead: his defiant last words are featured first to set the tone for the hagiography that follows].â€

Post by **spooky girlfriend** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 8:29 pm

It was a bit difficult to deal with four teenagers in the house who had never seen hanging as a method of death. Not that they didn't know who Hussein was, but they were negatively moved by a public hanging. As they should have been.

I wasn't a fan of his, but the death was just an odd end to an odd man.

Tim(e) · Post by **Tim(e)** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:47 pm

Mr. Average wrote:Maybe it isn't the sleep of the priviledged that should be secured and satisfied by the end of this terroristic hatemonger. Might be better to ask the double amputee who dissented against Saddam and was placed in a woodchipper until his legs were slowed sheared away to stubs. Or the orphaned son whose family was nerve-gassed to an excuciating death under Saddams order.

Unfortunately, as the number of civillian deaths in Iraq continues to escalate (at higher rates than before Saddam's removal), I doubt that the victims you describe above will sleep any easier. Sure, they may well be glad to see the end of one despot, but sadly they will not be allowed to rest easily. With the US presence, the casualties will continue to rise and with the US gone, there will no doubt eventually be another to follow in Hussein's footsteps... it appears to be a problem with no easy solution (as if that need saying).

Sleep well. If for one second you do not believe that the mission of Radical Islam does not include you, by virtue of your ethnicity and your status as an in fidel (can't talk or write your way out of that label...too late!) then you are simply delusional.

I and my family live in a part of Sydney that has a high proportion of people of Islamic faith and to tell the truth, I feel more threatened by the traffic when I am crossing the road - this is not being delusional, just realistic - I understand the threat, but don't consider it extreme enough to lose sleep over.

There may well be fundamentalists within our society, but if I was to concern myself with that, then what is the point? They may well strike one day, but then again, so might another Timothy McVeigh or UNA bomber or Martin Bryant (who shot dead 35 people in Tasmania).

LessThanZero · Post by **LessThanZero** » Sun Dec 31, 2006 10:45 am

Yeah, we're probably all going to die at some point. Just like the people Sadaam killed, just like the people George W. Bush killed, just like the people SARS killed, just like the people bad drivers kill, just like the people Osama killed, just like Osama...well, he's still alive, but he'll be dead someday too.

I just wish you all a happy new year with family and friends. Tell them you love them today, because you could be the next victim of the mission of radical Islam.

Mechanical Grace · Post by **Mechanical Grace** » Sun Dec 31, 2006 3:37 pm

AV,

Although I won't get into detail cuz I'm not up for a long debate, I think the descriptive asides and so on in the Times piece you noted do not constitute bias in most cases. I think most journalism relies on such description, or the piece would say "He put the noose round his neck and died." To the degree that it must describe, all journalism is biased, in what it chooses to focus on and what it ignores; however that is not to say one mustn't be a close and careful reader, as you've been. I have a lot of complaints about the Times-- they do let some obnoxious, unprofessional lines fly, in all directions-- but I read that piece before I read your comments, and frankly, even as a dyed-in-the-wool, knee-jerk, bleeding-heart, East-coast-elite, pseudo-intellectual tree-hugging liberal, those descriptions elicited these few thoughts: 1. Good fucking riddance; 2. Boy he got off easily and casually [another perverse reason to be against the death penalty, though I am, in every case];3. What a fucking mess; so much suffering by so many, for the causes of so few); and 4. good fucking riddance.

As for Radical Islam, have at it. Just remember that most of Islam is not radical. Fundamental Christians offend me deeply because of what they're doing to our society; however, I don't extend that to apply to all Christians, because to do so would be prejudiced and hateful, frankly.

alexv · Post by **alexv** » Sun Dec 31, 2006 6:16 pm

MG, despite the fact that sophisticated tree-hugging folks like you (and sophisticated SUV-drivng, chicken- consuming folks like me) are able to read the piece and skip the reporter's slanted comments, my pet peeve with The Times has for some time been that too much of its reporting (i"m not talking interpretative pieces or editorials) is shot through with the slants and biases of the reporters. This article is particularly egregious.

I do think that a straight reporting of Saddam's death should stick to the facts and not be shot through with the kind of language in that report,and such a report would not just be a "he died today, hanged" summary. This is not People Magazine we are talking about here, it's our newspaper of record, admittedly a liberal paper, but that's ok, the Wall Street Journal serves as its conservative equivalent.

My reaction has nothing to do with the war, saddam, etc. On your reaction, I agree on (1), (2) and (4). I disagree with your point 3, but since there's at least two sides to this and every story, there's certainly no reason to debate.

Happy New Year, MG.

Mechanical Grace · Post by **Mechanical Grace** » Sun Dec 31, 2006 8:41 pm

alexv wrote: On your reaction, I agree on (1), (2) and (4). I disagree with your point 3, but since there's at least two sides to this and every story, there's certainly no reason to debate.

Happy New Year, MG.

I think you're assuming that by "so much suffering by so many, for the causes of so few" I meant the Dubya's causes; in this case, I mean Saddam's, in the first place, and those of many other immoral or simply misguided people.

Happy new year back!

bambooneedle · Post by **bambooneedle** » Sun Dec 31, 2006 9:24 pm

He was a vewy, vewy bad man.

Boy With A Problem · Post by **Boy With A Problem** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:42 pm

I watched both the basic Fox coverage of the execution as well as the basic Al Jazeera coverage - not the pundits; just the reporting and there was virtually no difference. I didn't detect any slant, I think Fox said that the executioners were heckling Hussein and Al Jazeera described it as taunting. The pictures told the story anyway.

Speaking of which - because this is 2007 - the hanging could be seen on YouTube over the weekend - recorded on a mobile phone.