| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
No doubt when the Americans decided to put Saddam Hussein on trial, rather than simply kill him or let the government kill him, their minds were full of a blend of the Nuremberg Trials and those "Truth and Reconciliation" businesses that are all the rage these days. No doubt, too, they thought that "the Iraqis," suffused with eternal gratitude toward their "liberators" ("The liberation of Baghdad will make the liberation of Kabul seem like a funeral procession" -- also sprach Bernard Lewis, and so many others after him), would all be able to unite around their indignation and fury at mass-murdering Saddam Hussein.
But Saddam Hussein's mass murder of Kurds never did elicit a single syllable of protest from the Arab League, or any Arab government, or any significant Arab body – or, indeed, from any Arab at all, save for Kanan Makiya and one or two others. And Saddam Hussein's mass murder of Shi'a, similarly, was never a cause for indignation among Sunni Arabs inside or outside Iraq.
It should have been expected that once Saddam Hussein was permitted to live and stand trial, that he would become a symbol of a Sunni put on trial by a Shi'a-dominated government. And hence, for many Sunnis (even for those who suffered under him) Saddam Hussein became a symbol of their former status and supposed well-being, and of their new and unjustly humbled condition – unjust to them, in their refusal to recognize their real numbers or to acquiesce in the loss of power.
For they do not care what happened to them under Saddam Hussein. Their memories are fluid, picking out what they wish to remember, forgetting what they don't. Why would it be otherwise among people raised in societies suffused with a belief-system where what happened in the seventh century, or eighth, or ninth, or eleventh, the battles, the men, the deeds of valor and of treachery are kept fresh, and mean far more than what happened, say, a year or so ago when the Infidels sent aid to Pakistan or to Aceh, or a few years before that when they rescued Muslims in Kosovo and Bosnia.
Yes, Saddam Hussein, having been captured alive, and allowed to live and stand trial, did not become a rallying point, based on shared hatred of him, for "Iraqis," but rather a would-be martyr for almost all (except the most morally aware) Sunnis. And so now he is on the verge of no longer being a would-be martyr, but the very thing. The Shi'a and the Kurds remember him as murderer rather than as martyr. And so his trial, his sentence, and his execution will not serve, as dreamy and endlessly ignorant and obstinate policy-makers in Washington and their confused and besieged claque once thought, to unite and rally "Iraqis" to "Iraq."
How silly those Americans were, how uncomprehending, how little able to think or plan ahead.
So much nonsense. So much vzdor. So many stupidaggini. So much crap.
The execution of Saddam Hussein will exacerbate matters wonderfully. For he who has recently been adopting a magnanimous tone, addressing himself to all "Iraqis" and not only to his Sunni supporters. He has even repeatedly called on "Iraqis" not to "hate" the Infidels but only their governments. He may also, in his wild calculations, have thought that there was a chance that the Americans would see him as a possible savior-of-their-bacon in Iraq, and free him. Still, he will in death be a Sunni martyr, a figure of myth and poetry, the Sunni Arab put to death by those Rafidite dogs and Persians.
And as a bonus, Nouri al-Maliki has decided to have him executed forthwith, before he can be tried for the Anfal campaign against the Kurds, or for any of his attacks on fellow Sunnis. And in ignoring any of the non-Shi'a victims of Saddam Hussein, al-Maliki and the Shi'a supporting this hastened execution are ensuring that resentments among the Kurds will grow: they will now not get those months in court to state their case against him, and to let facts be presented to a not-very-candid world about the Arab persecution of the Kurds. The execution itself will further separate Sunni from Shi'a Arabs. But the timing of the execution, taking place after a single trial in which the victims were 148 Shi'a, and only Shi'a, at Dejail, and without any attempt to hold a trial about his killing of 182,000 Kurds in all of Kurdistan, or 300,000 Marsh Arabs in the south, will alienate the Kurds from the Shi'a. They are already angry at the Sunni Arabs, for it was the Sunni Arabs who eagerly supported the man who mass-murdered them, and it is Sunni Arabs who have moved in, or been moved in, to formerly Kurdish villages and even cities. In contested Kirkuk, it is largely Kurds against Sunni, not Shi'a, Arabs.
If one understands that the right goal is not to bring "democracy" to people who, because of the belief-system of Islam, cannot conceivably locate legitimacy in the expressed will of the people, but rather will always re-locate it in the will expressed by Allah in the canonical texts, and as glossed by the sayings and acts of his Prophet, Muhammad, then one will see the folly of Bush's enterprise. He doesn't. But never mind. The Muslim Arabs in Iraq are behaving as one would wish them to behave. Nouri al-Maliki, in putting Saddam Hussein to death tonight, will be ensuring the Sunni martyrdom of Saddam Hussein (even among Sunnis who suffered during his regime), and the Kurdish resentment at the (Shi'a) Arab indifference, as the Kurds will see it, to their own much greater (as the Kurds see it) suffering from Saddam Hussein.
If what one believes that the best way to defend the imperilled Camp of Infidels is by weakening the Camp of Islam, by exploiting its own natural divisions, the execution of Saddam Hussein tonight will be something to welcome. For leaving aside the matter of justice, it will help promote our ends, our goals. Not in the way Bush or many others assume it will, by "showing Iraqis that they can have justice through the judicial process." But in another way, a way visitors to JW by now understand perfectly.
And so, too, will Infidel interests be promoted by such things as the Saudi cleric's judgment expressed in this article. Here are his words:
"The rejectionists (Shi'ites) in their entirety are the worst of the Islamic nation's sects. They bear all the characteristics of infidels," Sheikh Abdel-Rahman al-Barrak said in the fatwa, or ruling, distributed on Islamist Web sites. “They are in truth polytheist infidels, though they hide this," it said, citing theological differences 14 centuries after the death of the Prophet Mohammad, such as reverence of shrines which followers of Saudi Arabia's Wahhabi school consider abhorrent."
Reading such words puts a bounce in my step and a smile on my face. Many Infidels no doubt have experienced something similar.
Posted by Hugh at December 29, 2006 5:08 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
I think that Justice for the families of those who were tortured and killed by Saddam and his family has been served.
I only hope that they will remember that the United States brought the little braggart to justice when we abandon them and leave them to their civil war...
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com
Posted by: Doctor Bulldog![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 29, 2006 5:17 PM
Yeah but is it Saddam?
The guy in my local kebab shop swares he's the real Saddam Hussain
What do you think?
http://www.turkeytravelplanner.com/AssetsTurkey/People/SaddamDonerci.jpg
Posted by: hierophant at December 29, 2006 5:30 PM
What a sick world where there is more bleating over the execution of a thug like this guy than there ever was or would be over his victims' demise. Pathetic.
at December 29, 2006 5:47 PM
An adviser to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saddam would be executed before 6 a.m. Saturday, or 10 p.m. Friday EST.
Posted by: Malinois at December 29, 2006 5:57 PM
We have some liberals in my town who stand on the corner every sat. to protest the war. I have asked them why they never protested when Saddam was killing Kurds.Never any answer from them. www.globalconservative.com
Posted by: Madcap at December 29, 2006 5:58 PM
Madcap,
Good point! I never thought of asking them that question! I'll give it a try the next time someone shoves an anti-war flyer in my face.
Cheers,
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com
Posted by: Doctor Bulldog at December 29, 2006 6:02 PM
They go one about Saddam yet look at the Sudan when millions are being displaced in Darfur and who called for regime change in Indonesia? Who helped the Armenians and the world stood by when the Hellenics were being exterminated? It is not consistent to me. We sort out Saddam when he was only doing his own people in yet we seem to ignore the Iranians when they were and are funding global terrorism, funding Hezbollah and in turn funding Hamas to attack Israeli civilians.
It is the Iranians who are behind the majority of the attacks on our soldiers.
Instead of attacking a state like Iraq which was putting the Islamists down, suppressing Iranian organised Shia rebellions we should have been concentrating on Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Yemen, The Sudan, Pakistan where the terrorists were and are still funded and find a safe haven.
Iraq was just a sideshow, yet it was useful in keeping Iran in check. As for Israel. Iran is a bigger danger to Israel than Iraq was, funding Hamas and Hezbollah etc, now with this going on in Iraq we have diverted much needed resources away from keeping Iran in check, they are responding to sanctions by stepping up nuclear activities.
at December 29, 2006 7:20 PM
I am completely flabbergasted by the inconsistencies of many here. Saddam is going to be killed because he was a secularist who suppressed Islam, whether Sunni or Shia. He protected Christians and even let his daughter convert to Christianity without objecting.
Yes, he killed a whole lot of Shi'ites and Kurds and say God bless him for it. The Shia he killed wanted to turn Iraq into another Iran while the Kurds were being stirred up by the Muslim brotherhood. Now that Saddam is gone, these creeps are in charge and the Christians now face extermination.
Saddam was a dictator and a thug. Well a dictator and thug is exactly what Iraq needed. To bring democracy to Muslims is to allow them to live by the Quran.
Nevertheless, I believe that ultimately Saddam and the Christians he protected will have justice. John F.Kennedy had the CIA kill South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem and one month later Kennedy got the retribution he so richly deserved.
Now Bush and Maliki are going to murder Saddam after a Stalin style show trial.
Posted by: Provoslavni at December 29, 2006 7:36 PM
I don't feel bad for Sadaam, I never will, he's too evil, he brutalized too many people, and you know he will do it again given half the chance. So I'm not going to bleat some inane anti-death penalty phrase like "eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" and I don't think the U.S. or anybody else killing Sadaam is a bad thing.
If his death causes an Islamic split, all the better.
Posted by: JadeDragoness at December 29, 2006 8:09 PM
I agree with PMK in the previous thread; I do not relish another wave of Islamic violence in our current state of unpreparedness and cluelessness.
Hugh is right, if done properly and with forethought, this could have been an excellent chess move. Lao Tzu or Machiavelli would have been proud. But I fear we are just blundering into our next deadly mistake.
When the Sunnis take their murderous revenge, and the Shi'ites retaliate, and so on, it will be the U.S. that is blamed by "world opinion", and it will be the Administration accepting that blame and vowing to "stay the course" no matter how rough it gets, gotta stick with it, can't cut and run, and it will be U.S. troops standing between the warring parties, acting as peacemakers/targets.
Posted by: special_guest at December 29, 2006 8:17 PM
No one should feel sorry for Saddam.
Saddam was the weak link and a threat to our flanks if push comes to shove with Iran.
We remove a butcher the World recognized as being one. Proof of his crimes were exposed to the world upon the occupation of his Country.
Seems to me the Left were pointing out the crimes Saddam was perpetrating against the Kurds and Shia. They should be happy we did it.
If we could keep the Sunni's from attacking us by sparing Saddam's life. Then we could better deploy our forces against Sadar and Iran.
The National Military assets of some of these Countries need to be reduced or rendered ineffective before a full scale inner Religious warfare breaks out.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at December 29, 2006 8:17 PM
IceDragon said
Disaster, total disaster, the only thing we may be able to do will be to be to drop a nuke on Tehran and Mecca.
Now there's a chess move that the Administration would be capable of: knocking the whole chess board to the floor as they are about to be checkmated. And it may eventually be the only move available, given our leaders' intellectual prowess.
Posted by: special_guest at December 29, 2006 8:23 PM
No way will the video of Saddam's demise be as invigorating, or as funny, as that of the Ayatollah's cadaver being passed around a mosh pit of a quarter million fervid Persian men chanting Moslem death chants.
Now that was old school, back when movies were movies, when Moslems were a little less media savvy and a lot more likely to let it all hang out.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 29, 2006 8:28 PM
Good point "Alarmed"!!
I remember when Yassa Hairyfat (Arafat) was paraded around that big courtyard before he was planted and the masses were screaming and firing guns.
Posted by: guide inside at December 29, 2006 8:48 PM
"Now there's a chess move that the Administration would be capable of: knocking the whole chess board to the floor as they are about to be checkmated. And it may eventually be the only move available, given our leaders' intellectual prowess."
The only way to defeat Islam is to destroy its belief in its ultimate victory as promised in the Qur'an. Given the fanatical nature of Islam's adherents, this is going to require the shedding of a great deal of blood. Islam has proven that it considers the shedding of Infidel blood a delight to Allah...and we continue to fight by Marquis of Queensbury rules.
The Battle of the Century: Nitwits Vs Madmen
at December 29, 2006 9:17 PM
Hugh:
"The execution of Saddam Hussein will exacerbate matters wonderfully"
Indeed. Fitzgerald has been perspicaciously prophetic in many matters!
As an Indian columnist ssso belatedly exposes:
"The whole scenario thus boils down to the Marxist party getting exposed for what it truly is: An entity that talks about the poor but has no compunction in working for the rich and even the underworld. But the more dangerous outgrowth of the Marxists in power is the strong bond between them and the Islamist elements. The Thiruvangadi by-election, where the Marxists used former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden for gathering Muslim votes, was the latest demonstration of this alliance. But this is not a new thing as the party's national leadership, too, has been promoting Islamist causes at the national level as this columnist has pointed out on several occasions".
Be it congress or bjp or any party, they are all unprincipled ruthless thugs. Fumigation is good.
at December 29, 2006 9:23 PM
CNN is reporting that Arab Media is Reported that Hussein has Been exectuted.
It's a good start.
You reape what you sowe.
Posted by: Concerned Canadian at December 29, 2006 10:14 PM
Ye Olde Englisshe Spelling?
Posted by: Hugh at December 29, 2006 10:17 PM
Hugh
Just another log on the fire. Its going to be a great little civil war.
May we leave soon and long live the Islamic Civil War!
Posted by: greatcometof1577 at December 29, 2006 10:19 PM
Damn i am a bad Typist.
I need to Preview before i hit Post. lol
Posted by: Concerned Canadian at December 29, 2006 10:19 PM
Did anyone else catch the shots of Iraqi flags flying among the cheering crowds in Dearborn on CNN? It was being broadcast live.
An American flag came into the frame from the left. It was flying upside down. The coverage was cut after about two more seconds.
Posted by: pez at December 29, 2006 10:44 PM
Baghdad (dpa) - Former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was executed early Saturday morning, Iraqi television reported.
The execution came just four days after an Iraqi court upheld the death sentence handed down after Saddam was convicted for the 1982 massacre in the Iraqi city of Dujail, al-Hurra television reported, citing government sources.
He was hanged at 6am(Iraq time).
at December 29, 2006 10:59 PM
* Waits for the inevitable Saddam was robbed of Justice post *
at December 29, 2006 11:09 PM
... or robbed of a Fair Trial post.
Posted by: Concerned Canadian at December 29, 2006 11:10 PM
From CNN's story:
There is a belief that the execution could be soon because the law does not permit executions to be carried out during religious holidays.
What an amorphous statement. "There is a belief"? Maybe among Westerners, those unacquainted with the teachings of Mohammad, those who think that Islam is just like Christianity and Judaism. Hey, Muslims believe in Jesus, I bet they accept his message of love and forgiveness and peace, right?
But an Islamic cleric, one who has spent his life studying the Qur'an and the sayings and deeds of Mohammad, quickly sets them straight:
Sheikh Jalaleddin al-Saghir, who is both a Shiite cleric and a parliament member from the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, said, "There is absolutely no problem from a religious standpoint to carry out the death sentence at the start of Eid."Posted by: special_guest
at December 29, 2006 11:26 PM
Ding! dong! the dictator's dead!
One down...a few more to go.
Posted by: Xero G at December 29, 2006 11:30 PM
Hugh
I never thought of Kurds resenting the fact that they don't get their day in court. Although I'd think they could continue his trials post-mortem by holding hearings into all his other crimes, and make it a never ending soap.
Anyway, Iraqi TV is already reporting him dead. From that news:
At his death, he was in the midst of a second trial, charged with genocide and other crimes for a 1987-88 military crackdown that killed an estimated 180,000 Kurds in northern Iraq. Experts said the trial of his co-defendants was likely to continue despite his execution.So I wouldn't count on a Shia-Kurd rift just yet. But one can sure hope for it to materialize going forward, as the Shia try to lord it over the rest, including Kurds.
If it wasn't for his fanatical obsession with Israel and his support of terror, he might have been the best thing for the region - cripple Iran, conquer Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and the US could still have dealt with him as an ally.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at December 29, 2006 11:32 PM
Here is your American Fox News headline banner:
http://www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/saddam_hanged_600.jpg
Choice stuff eh, the exclamation mark is a very civilised point.
at December 29, 2006 11:38 PM
Infidel Pride, i don't think so. 911 marked the eventual Deathnell for Islamic Tyrants and Extremists everywhere. they will ALL get theirs . sooner or later.
The line has been crossed .
Posted by: Concerned Canadian at December 29, 2006 11:39 PM
pez said
An American flag came into the frame from the left. It was flying upside down.
Good catch, small green citrus who turned into a hard candy. What gives the media the right to self-censor our news? I have never seen the footage from 9/11 of the "Palestinians" laughing and dancing and handing out candy. I can only assume that all copies of the videotape were destroyed, and the photographer was "terminated with extreme prejudice". As Max von Sydow explained to Robert Redford, "It will happen like this..."
They're supposed to give us the news, not cover it up.
Posted by: special_guest at December 29, 2006 11:47 PM
Yeah it was on Australian TV and Arrafat was very embarrassed at the time
at December 29, 2006 11:52 PM
As El Cid received the news of Saddams death, I couldn't help but think that a new phase, a more tumultuous phase in our war against Jihad, Dawa, Sharia and Dihimitude has begun.
Hugh is so right in his assessment! Brilliant and spot on!
This maybe the start of the great Sunni-Shia conflict that will engulf the world, ignite the coming global transformation that will bring civil war in Europe, nuclear detonations in the Middle East and a complete transformation of the world we know.
While dark clouds lay ahead, and we are about to enter a stormy war torn world, in the long run the coming Sunni-Shia conflict with be good for the world.
It will be the internal weakness of Islam that we will exploit to save the world.
Let us pray... that we can rise to the occasion and confront this evil.
The islamic world is about to plunge into bloody war, let us hope that we can be strong enough to drive a stake into the heart of Jihad and free future generations from the desert menace.
at December 30, 2006 12:00 AM
El Cid said
This maybe the start of the great Sunni-Shia conflict that will engulf the world, ignite the coming global transformation that will bring civil war in Europe, nuclear detonations in the Middle East and a complete transformation of the world we know.
I have an uneasy feeling you may be right. This may be like the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand that triggers something big. So why does it still feel like we are living in the days before (sorry to keep time-jumping) Pearl Harbor, and we still have no idea of the danger that awaits us, or from whom we should be defending ourselves? We've had 5 years to begin to protect ourselves from the next attack; have we?
Posted by: special_guest at December 30, 2006 12:37 AM
Hugh- The trial of Saddam was twofold- not one dimensional- We did the absolute moral right in capturing and having him tried for war crimes and executed by his own people. Justice was served, asnd I beleive it leaves a powerful impression on all those remaining dicatators that there IS a reckoning comming if they follow in Saddam's footsteps. I don't think this was entirely an effort to 'rally Muslims' to our side- morei mportantly it was a message stating to the world that we WILL help the downtrodden as best we can- despite hteir hatred of us. http://sacredscoop.com
Posted by: CottShop at December 30, 2006 12:38 AM
I am surprised that the execution was carried out so quickly. What concerns me the most is that there will be some stupid Muslim somewhere who will see Saddam Hussein as a martyr. He is not a martyr. He was a thug, and a murderer. The death of the 148 Shia is a drop in the ocean when it comes to the number of murders that were carried out and condoned by Saddam Hussein. In truth, he should have been tried for the murder of the members of the parliament that he engineered when he first seized power.
I think it is a pity that the Kurds will not have their day in court because the world needed to be reminded of the outrageous murder of the Kurds via poison gas. I have seen the photographs of the Kurds who will killed by Saddam Hussein.
Saddam Hussein did not protect the Christians, although there are some who would have us believe that Christians were a protected species under the Ba'ath dictatorship. It is true that he also suppressed the Sunni, but he was a Sunni and therefore he only suppressed those who were speaking up against him, which is not the same thing as what he did to the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs.
I am glad that Saddam Hussein is dead. It is a pity that this death did not happen 10 years ago.
What will happen now? In some ways I see that a Shia vs Sunni war could erupt. Then again who knows what might happen. The end of Saddam Hussein means that his loyal followers are without a leader. We will just have to wait and see with regard to what will happen next.
I want to see peace in Iraq. I do not like the idea that the Shia will be dominant, since they are foolish enough to follow Ahmanutjob. I am actually hoping that someone will succeed in killing the man I believe to be the next minor Antichrist i.e. the nut who is in charge of Iran.
Posted by: Maggie4Life at December 30, 2006 12:44 AM
Agreed, Hugh!
Fighting between Shi'ites and Sunni turns the violence inward.
Unfortunately, the US administration is expending American lives in attempting to stem this.
Bush is stuck on stupid*.
Like a terrier, he keeps worrying on the same rotten hunk of meat-cum-bone.
(Never mind the mixed metaphors, they make the point.)
As you said so many times before, he cannot let go of an Iraq that is a "democracy" "just like the fledgling 13 States were when the US was in its infancy."
Stupid, stupid, stupid. He is stuck on it.
the same old, same old, comes out of his mouth.
He started off with an "Axis of Evil" and an intent to destroy it.
He is stuck in Iraq.
Iran and N. Korea are defiant.
He is stuck on Iraq (Stupid).
More troops ain't gonna do it. We know that. More troops, more Americans to be killed by "Improvised Explosive devices" (IEDs.)
The wished-for "Iraqi Army" will never be a national Iraqi force that will keep that hastily stitched-together conglomeration together.
Give it up already
And hit Iran.
That will solve the Gordian knot that is Iraq.
Without Iran, no need to worry that the Iranians will take over in Iraq.
The Saudis?
Well, yes, who knows what is owed to them by Stuck on Stupid?
_________________
*"stuck on stupid" originally refers to the state of mind by someone who has imbibed--oh heck, if you don't know what it is, ask me, send me a telegram.
at December 30, 2006 12:52 AM
Concerned Canadian
I get what you're saying, but I think this man, who inflicted heavy losses on Iran, and might have gone on to overthrow the al Sabah and al Saud clans, could have aborted a lot of the Islamic fanaticism.
What put paid to that hope was his vicious attitude towards Israel. Otherwise, why would it be against our interests to let him have the entire Arabian Peninsula, Jordan and Syria?
Posted by: Infidel Pride at December 30, 2006 1:04 AM
Saddam is gone, and now several more will go, ie the littla man from iran, and al sadr who looks like the muffin man!
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at December 30, 2006 1:16 AM
special_guest, try this:
Posted by: Concerned Canadian at December 30, 2006 1:30 AM
Why does it matter how many Shia Sadam killed? Yea, it is sad when one Muslim kills thousands of other Muslims. Yea, it was sad when Sadam mowed down all of those Iranian kids sent over the mine fields in the Iran-Iraq war, clutching their "keys to the kingdom beyond."
But is it our problem? I would say it is a good thing that he's gone, but only in the context of furthering animosity that the Sunni may/will feel towards their Shia brothers.
In this, Sadam was "good" for Islam(from Islam's point of view)in that he squashed all dissent, most intra-religious conflict. He seemed to kill everybody at one point or another, from Jews, Christian, Shia and his won Sunni 'got theirs' from Sadam. All were fearful. He was the hammer that 'put down' the intra-Islamic hatred within Iraq(and now outside of Iraq).
The beauty of it is soon Iraq will not be 'our problem.' Our boys will soon come home; we can't stay in that hell hole forever. One senses that even Bush is stymied by the Iraqi project. But Iraq is very much the problem of our friends The Saudis. Iraq is very much the problem of the Iranians and the gulf emirs, even the Jordanians and Egyptians.
We, the Americans, have simply thrown the ball high into the air: the Sunnis and the Shias are watching the ball drop. May the best Muslim win! I wish good luck to both the Sunnis and the Shias. I hope both sides inflict pain on one another, and I'm sure they will.
No analogy or metaphor is perfect, but I liken Sadam to Tito. Joey Tito kept a grip on the ethnic stew of Yugoslavia at a simmer, but when he left, all hell broke loose . . . and continues too. The conflict will spread from Iraq to Iran and Saudi Arabia and Lebanon and too Jordan because, in truth, the conflict has nothing to do with "iraq" as a false contstruct; the conflict has everything to do with the division within the House of Islam. Jump Ball! May the best Muslim win.
Posted by: biorabbi at December 30, 2006 1:41 AM
In the FNC discussions on Saddam's execution, they interviewed one Muwaffaq al Rubai, who witnessed the execution. One thing that struck me was his repeatedly emphasizing how Islamic tradition was meticulously and 'scrupulously' followed every step of the way.
According to him, in the end, Saddam was given the option of wearing the hood, but declined, so they went ahead and hanged him without it. That struck me as odd: I always thought the idea behind covering the face of one about to be hanged was to stifle his voice, and also to protect the witnesses from having to view his contorted face. Apparently, no such decorum is mandated in Islam: the condemned guy gets to decide whether the witnesses to his execution see his contorted features or not. Not surprising, for the 'religion' that preaches such an overwhelming amount of violence, hatred and death.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at December 30, 2006 2:57 AM
I like the comparison with Tito. At the very least, Saddam kept a lid on Sunni/Shia blood letting. Some countries need a Strong Man, I suppose. My bet is that Iranian influence will eventually lead to the creation of another Islamic(Shia)state. Bush, you're doing a heck of a job!
Posted by: Bingo at December 30, 2006 3:14 AM
I didn’t shed a tear. Saddam was nothing more than the Idi Amin of the Middle East. I consider his passing a positive for the world and the grand scheme of things.
The Iraq situation has its basic roots in history:
1. The British drew the boundary lines and created the Shia in an attempt to foment tribal warfare. The Shiite is a creation of the western mind.
2. This shows what a diverse heterogeneous Iraqi population will yield. Persians, vs. Arab vs. Shia vs. Sunni vs. Kurd, and all against the Christians and any other non believer. Probably would have been best to Balkanize the country, and break it into at least three, no matter what the Turks think.
3. We should have kept a close hand on "The Prize" and used it to defray our losses and costs. Rather than spend our treasure on those that lack will and are incapable of satisfaction.
Finally, yet we forget and lest the Iraqi's fail to see it: Saddam was a brutal dictator and mass murderer. Hopefully, those long posters and others on the site are not feeling nostalgic for the good old, bad days and pray for the ascension of Saddam for a black Easter. That would be a sure sign of prophecy.
at December 30, 2006 3:32 AM
Bingo
Let it. That way, you'll have Iran, Iraq and Syria arrayed against Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other Gulf states, which although not exactly bordering Iran or Iraq, would be directly threatened if the Saudis fall. Once such a lineup is created, the Saudis will be compelled to divert dawa cash towards funding the Baathists and al Qaeda in Iraq and the Ikhwan in Syria, while Iran would be compelled to divert cash towards supporting Shia unrest in al Hasa, Bahrein, Yemen and other states. Let it happen, and then sit back and enjoy.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at December 30, 2006 3:35 AM
On balance, the execution of Sadaam by the fledgling Iraqi nation for his dictatorial excesses is a good thing, and probably should have happened sooner - and definitely not any later.
We can nit-pick the details, and the "what-if's", and the supposed benefits of keeping him alive, but when you come right down to it, the Iraqi government needs to act strongly and decisively in order to gain the upper hand in its struggle for control and legitimacy. The (relatively) swift trial and execution of the former dictator helps do that. In a more perfect world, Al-Sadr would be next on the list ...
As to the rest, this is probably a no-win situation. Kill him, and you may create a martyr, a rallying point. Keep him alive, and you have a living symbol, a rallying point, and one who may one day be freed or escape. Better off dead, I think. Death is a message with some weight to the Islamic mind. Remember, Sadaam thought it beneath him to be hanged, and wanted instead to be shot - an end more befitting a leader of his high station.
"When you lie with dogs, you're bound to get fleas ..." For it's own purposes, the US and its allies practically created Sadaam in the old days, in part for his value as a foil against the Soviets and the Iranian Islamists. Until his ego got the better of him and he thought he had outgrown his handlers.
Shame on us for our complicity in looking past his atrocities, as well as to the news agencies like CNN who failed to tell us about them as they occurred. But having helped create the monster we did in the end bear some responsibility for destroying him, and for doing what we now can to replace him with something better.
With all deference to the late President Ford, there IS a "national interest" at stake in Iraq, albeit a strategic and perhaps long-term one.
And when a thug has his finger in his pocket claiming to have a gun that he's willing to use, you are justified in taking (deadly) action based on that assumption, even if it later turns out only to be an (unloaded) finger.
We do the best we can with the information we have. Sometimes we do the right things for the wrong reasons. Sometimes we don't do anything at all, immobilized by our own indecision. Islamists are increasingly depending on this aspect of Western culture, oft known as "political correctness". In leadership training, students are often admonished to "do something, anything ... even if it's the wrong thing..", rather than to take the "easy" road of gutless inaction, which really isn't leadership at all.
We can do better, of course. We can learn and adapt. That is one of our strengths, and one of the great strengths of our military forces.
Not the poll-driven "policy initiative of the day" so popular during the Clinton years, but a combination of a firm and steady drive toward a goal, together with tactical adaptations and adjustments to meet the needs of a changing and fluid battlefield.
Our soldiers and their military leaders know this. They are trained to it. Our politicians seem less aware. Our popular media seems almost clueless - and the "talking heads" and professional pundits (including unfortunately all too many retired and former military officers) know that the way to get face time and media attention is to present the "opposing view", or the one that challenges the current thinking of those actually on the ground and making the decisions.
The Arab/Islamic mind admires strength, and abhors weakness. One does not need to be brutal to be strong, but one does need to be firm and steady, and to stand by one's friends and allies.
One of the greatest difficulties we face today in the region is the fear that we will "cut and run" before the job is finished, leaving our allies at the mercy of their, and our, enemies.
We've done it before, and they know it. As recently as Iraq in the 1990's, in Israel, Lebanon, Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, and in the Bay of Pigs. And the list goes on and on.
There is strength in intellectual diversity, and in honest debate. So much of the recent debate regarding our collective response to the Islamo-fascist threat however, seems completely gratuitous, and intended more to serve the political needs and aspirations of a particular political creed, whose antagonisms to Western culture and liberty might not be so different from those of the Islamists, who are today's primary global threat to peace and freedom.
Posted by: Breckshire at December 30, 2006 3:42 AM
GrimReaperxxx said
The British drew the boundary lines and created the Shia in an attempt to foment tribal warfare. The Shiite is a creation of the western mind.
Because the peaceful practitioners of the Religion of Peace could never become violent against each other unless we evil infidels/Zionists/whatever made them do it? Foment tribal warfare? When have the tribes of the Middle East ever required fomenting to become violent against each other? Did we all-powerful infidels invent a time machine and foment the bloody chain-of-succession struggles a thousand years ago (before the British Empire existed, let alone the U.S.)? Is there anything bad that happens in the world that we Westerners are not responsible for?
Posted by: special_guest at December 30, 2006 3:57 AM
I have a friend well possibly an ex friend who is a liberal. Really tired of his idiotic analyis of everything. He was against the Iraq war, against the US, against hanging Sadam. Yet he had the gall to tell me he supports Turkey's claim to Kurdistan. Its funny he has no problem with human rights abuses yet cries foul over the US's. He has no problem with china's human rights abuses and blames the US for famine in china during the 50's. His family is from there. I realize this guy has a huge inferiority complex. I mean gigantic. And by the way China not being able to feed itself is its own doing. I realize well not now but again that so called free thinking liberals are people with huge inferiority complex's that hide behind buzz words and pretend we must be better than everyone else to attack anyone they think is better than them. And role eyes and ignore when you point out their hypocricy. Even though the posts on this site show that we must stick together across cultures to defend ourselves against Islam, we must protect ourselves against multiculturalism. Too many people such as my friend are here who's families have not died for western civization and have such an inferiority complex they want it destroyed.
Posted by: pissedoffcanadian at December 30, 2006 6:00 AM
Could this hanging of Saddam send a needed message to the other dictators in the Middle East?
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at December 30, 2006 6:38 AM
It is pretty obvious that Saddam's execution is supposed help Bush spin in his January speech that things are 'finally improving' in Iraq. IMO it is Bush who has rushed this execution, not the Iraqi PM
Posted by: george_rem at December 30, 2006 8:07 AM
"The British drew the boundary lines and created the Shia in an attempt to foment tribal warfare. The Shiite is a creation of the western mind."
-- from a posting above
No.
1) "The British drew the boundary lines...."
The most important "boundary line" is that separating Arabs and Persians -- the line between Iraq and Iran. That line was drawn not by the British but by representatives of the Ottoman Empire (for Iraq did not then exist, but consisted of three Ottoman vilayets, Basra, Baghdad, and Mosul) and the Persian Empire. This Treaty of 1847 was broked by Russia. Great Britain had nothing to do with it.
2) "The British drew the boundary lines and created the Shia in an attempt to foment tribal warfare."
The Shi'a have existed for 1300 years. They were not "created" by the British but rather by a dispute over the rightful line of succession to Muhammad, and from that initial rift, grew a number of other differences in belief and ritual. But on the matter of treatment of Infidels, Shi'a and Sunni do not differ.
The British who were in Iraq from 1920-1932, the period of Sir Percy Cox and Gertrude Bell, had no desire to "foment tribal" or any other kind of warfare. Gertrude Bell wrote in her letters about the Shi'a tribes that did not want to accept control by a government in Baghdad, especially one Sunni-dominated (Hashemite king, Sunni Arab elite, with an admixture of non-Sunnis and even non-Arabs).
3. "The Shiite is a creation of the Western mind."
This denies 1300 years of history, denies theology, denies the persecution and murder of Shi'a (hence the Shi'a-originating doctrine of taqiyya, designed to protect them from Sunni Muslims).
at December 30, 2006 8:27 AM
"Ding-dong the witch is dead, the witch is dead. Ding-dong the witch is dead"!
The "wicked witch of the east " ( Saddam Hussein of Iraq ) is dead. Watch out President Nutjob of Iran, your own people are starting to get a little bit tired of you.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at December 30, 2006 9:20 AM
In attempt to learn definition and etymology of one of Mr. Fitzgerald’s unique vocabulary terms of the day (e.g. “vilayet”) the following website was found and may be of interest to other JW&DW readers (and not found in JW&DW links lists): "History of Jihad"
www.historyofjihad.com
at December 30, 2006 9:45 AM
There is a belief that the execution could be soon because the law does not permit executions to be carried out during religious holidays.
Except Ramadan, et al.
Statements like this always perk up my ears. I have no real grounds for these suspicions that I can site, just a growing unease about the speediness of his execution.
My suspicions center around how much more complex the many nation's dealings were with Iraq and the UN over the oil-for-food. After all who would know more about what and who than Saddam. Somebody would have gotten to him with a book deal eventually.
at December 30, 2006 9:48 AM
lol i love it- people claiming 'Bush is stuck on stupid' because he and THOUSANDS of others decided that Saddam had to go and establishing a democracy in the middle east is a good thing for world stability- Yup- it's 'just Bush'- noone else feels the way he does- he forced everyone to go along with him- Yup- he's the man responsible- Cripes- give it a rest- 84 countries AGREED with him!!! Most of the SANE world saw wisdom in securing freedom for Iraqi civilians- "Bush this- Bush that" Blah Blah Blah http://sacredscoop.com
Posted by: CottShop at December 30, 2006 1:16 PM
Americaningermany, glad to see you after a long time! Recall somebody else too missing you in this site.
Cottshop:
"give it a rest- 84 countries AGREED with him!!! Most of the SANE world saw wisdom in securing freedom for Iraqi civilians- "Bush this- Bush that" Blah Blah Blah "
Captured my thoughts. Reminds me of Robert Browning's Poem 'The Patriot'. So what if the dogs bark? The Caravan Marches Ahead !
Posted by: Crows&Cows at December 30, 2006 2:56 PM
AIG,
Thank you! Too much of work with extremely restricted access to Internet(Computer).Anyway,thought is the deed:)Best Wishes!!
Posted by: Crows&Cows at December 31, 2006 10:37 AM
Good one, thanks!
absurd thought -
God of the Universe sings
DING DONG THE BUTCHER'S DEAD...
if there is a BIG bad HELL
Saddam's registered by NOW!
..
at January 3, 2007 5:36 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)