Execution of Saddam Hussein

[brandy]

wow just checked the news! saddam is to be put to death this weekend.
i never thought it would happen this fast actually.
the us gov. is handing him over to the iraqui gov.
the info is here
http://www.cnn.com/

[j4bberw0ck]

I don't believe in a life after death, but if I did, I'd be hoping that his execution would bring some satisfaction to the 10,000 Marsh Arabs - men, women and children - he gassed, and to the 250,000 Kurds he killed when they tried to rise up aginst him, and to the unknown number of people who simply disappeared in his Iraq, were tortured to death, and buried in mass graves in the desert.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Iraq invasion, Saddam Hussein is an evil man and a murderer.

[fred]

wow just checked the news! saddam is to be put to death this weekend.
i never thought it would happen this fast actually.
the us gov. is handing him over to the iraqui gov.
the info is here
http://www.cnn.com/

What a pity he couldn't have had a fair trial with an indipendent judge in a neutral country first.

But then there would have been no way of preventing him revealing who his accomplices were.

It's victors' justice nothing more, just reinforces what the radical Muslems have been saying about the West. A boost to Al Qaeda recruiting at a time when America is deciding whether to bring in the draft or hire foreign mercenaries.

[brandy]

we have actually decided against getting the boys their dual nationality.
i know they are only little now.. but what i did not realise was the fact , that even though they were born and being brought up here... they would still have to reg. for the draft.
my uncle was drafted, my aunt still has the letter when he was drafted during vietnam. she said that was the worst moment of their lives.

[Kolskegg]

It's victors' justice nothing more, just reinforces what the radical Muslems have been saying about the West. A boost to Al Qaeda recruiting at a time when America is deciding whether to bring in the draft or hire foreign mercenaries.

There are already 48,000 mercenaries in Iraq, many of them non-US. IN addition, 30%+ of the supposedly US troops don't have green cards.

[fred]

There are already 48,000 mercenaries in Iraq, many of them non-US. IN addition, 30%+ of the supposedly US troops don't have green cards.

Now theye are considering opening recruiting stations in foreign countries and offering US citizenship as an incentive to enlist.

http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m29332

[fred]

I don't believe in a life after death, but if I did, I'd be hoping that his execution would bring some satisfaction to the 10,000 Marsh Arabs - men, women and children - he gassed, and to the 250,000 Kurds he killed when they tried to rise up aginst him, and to the unknown number of people who simply disappeared in his Iraq, were tortured to death, and buried in mass graves in the desert.

But what about the 700,000 Iraqis who have died because of our invasion? Those who have been tortured to death in places like Abhu Graib? Where did Saddam get the sarin from in the first place?



Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Iraq invasion, Saddam Hussein is an evil man and a murderer.

Undoubtedly.

He isn't the only one though.

[Jeemag_USA]

I am soon to be holding dual citizenship, but hopefully I am too old to be drafted, mind you I'm a crack shot with a Rifle after my time on the hill in the deer season :)

I don't think the draft will come into effect in the USA just yet, the Republicans have already lost control of congress and it is almost as good as done that Democrats will win the next election and I really believe that the next President of the United States will be Hilary Clinton. The Democrats already want troops cut, but unfortunately Bush still has almost two years in power, however without a majority support in congress and the senate, he will find it extremely difficult to push anything through.

The simple fact is that the USA is not only short of bodies to throw in front of cannons, they are also short of money, too much has already been spent in Afghanistan and Iraq and the economy is feeling the pinch coupled by the fact that petrol prices have risen at least 125% since 911.

I know the UN is not perfect but I think the sooner the USA realises it cannot afford to go it alone on too many fronts the better.

PS Saddam has been in Iraqui hands for some time now, the USA only asked his lawyer to come collect his personal effects.

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/_/1/saddam_rummy.jpg
Mr Rumsfeld and Mr Hussein.

[Jeemag_USA]

There are already 48,000 mercenaries in Iraq, many of them non-US. IN addition, 30%+ of the supposedly US troops don't have green cards.

I am curious to know where you got this information, was this a professional study or news from a tabloid?

[Conscience]

I am curious to know where you got this information, was this a professional study or news from a tabloid?

Count the number of British soldiers out there. That is your number of mercenaries, sold into an illegal war by Poodle Blair.

[fred]

I am curious to know where you got this information, was this a professional study or news from a tabloid?

I think that includes "Security Guards" employed by private companies.

[Jeemag_USA]

I think that includes "Security Guards" employed by private companies.

If that is the case and they are working in Iraq for private companies, why would they need a US Green Card? I have a Green Card and am not yet a US Citizen, I cannot enlist for the US Armed Forces without having citizenship, now I am not saying it is not possible but it is very unlikely that thee are people in the US Armed forces without green cards because you must have citizenship to be enlisted, and in a terrorist alert state I doubt the USA is going to have non citizens fighting for them or being in position to infiltrate their forces. If there are people working in security for various concerned businesses or organisations, then they are not fighting for Allied forces or USA or the UK, they are protecting other peoples interests. Not meaning to sound offensive but its a pet hate of mine when people use unsubstantiated numbers, words etc to make something sound like something it isn't? Why don't people just talk about what they know about for real?

[Conscience]

The US is hiring mercenaries: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/05/1078464637030.htm

[bigpete]

Conscience; "Count the number of British soldiers out there. That is your number of mercenaries, sold into an illegal war by Poodle Blair."

Mercenaries? Get a life lad - what other theatres of war would you consider British Military personal as 'mercenaries'? All of 'em?
So easy to denigrate squaddies 'aint it? sat there safely thumping your keyboard, whilst somebody else - whoops I mean mercenaries - will protect your interests, WW1 WW2 etc

[Conscience]

Conscience; "Count the number of British soldiers out there. That is your number of mercenaries, sold into an illegal war by Poodle Blair."

Mercenaries? Get a life lad - what other theatres of war would you consider British Military personal as 'mercenaries'? All of 'em?
So easy to denigrate squaddies 'aint it? sat there safely thumping your keyboard, whilst somebody else - whoops I mean mercenaries - will protect your interests, WW1 WW2 etc

Not denigrating the soldiers, I'm denigrating the corrupt, lying Prime Minister who sent them into Viet Nam pt2.

[bigpete]

Fair enough conscience just that; 'when the term "mercenary" is used to refer to a soldier of a national, regular army, it usually is an insult'.

Hopefully be out of the mess in a year!?

[badger]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Iraq invasion, Saddam Hussein is an evil man and a murderer.

True but in this country we do not have the death penalty, for which I am thankful, and I do not believe we should condone it elsewhere. It seems that, as with everything else in this wretched war, Britain has no influence here. I do not believe Saddam is sane, which is hardly surprising given his nightmare childhood, but if he were the worst punishment would be for him to finally realise and regret what he has done. The only possible alternative to death for him is imprisonment for life - and that means until he dies - which poses other problems.

Our own leaders, mainly Bush and Blair, have the blood of thousands on their hands and should also be brought to justice.

[Jeemag_USA]

The US is hiring mercenaries: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/05/1078464637030.htm

Firstly the article is not available, and secondly why would I believe something I read in an online Australian newspaper? Besides that my main concern is the claim that 30%+ of Us Armed Forces do not have a green card, thats just absolute rubbish :) 100% of the US Armed forces do not have green cards, if your american you don't need one :L

[Conscience]

Ok, will the New York Times do? http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/19/international/middleeast/19SECU.html?ei=5007&en=98ef1377bf78c19d&ex=1397707200&partner=USERLA&pagewanted=print&position=

[Jeemag_USA]

Ok, will the New York Times do? http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/19/international/middleeast/19SECU.html?ei=5007&en=98ef1377bf78c19d&ex=1397707200&partner=USERLA&pagewanted=print&position=

These are security forces, not the US Armed Forces, they do not need green cards nor do they need to be citizens, some of them are anyway because they are American Security companies therefore they cannot be labelled Mercaneries, if they are US Security Companies then they are citizens and any country or any government can hire any security company to protect an interest or private concern. If Tony Blair wanted to have Brinks Security protect 10 Downing Street and had the backing of the government then he can do that. It does not make them mercenaries, they are security officers protecting vital investments inside a war zone, they are armed security guards and if fired upon they are going to fire back. And that doesn't cover the point that 30% + of the US Armed forces don't have a green card (none of them need one anyway because they are US Citizens).

Mecenary: : one that serves merely for wages; especially : a soldier hired into foreign service

BLACKWATER USA (Registerd USA Company)


We have established a global presence and provide training and operational solutions for the 21st century in support of security and peace, and freedom and democracy everywhere.
We customize and execute solutions for our clients to help keep them at the level of readiness required to meet today's military, law enforcement, peacekeeping, and stability operations challenges. We continually prove to be faster, better, cheaper, and more efficient and effective than conventionally managed forces. Our customers include local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies, the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, and most other federal agencies, multi-national corporations, non-governmental organizations, and friendly nations from around the world.

Now if the USA is hiring one of its best Security Companies to protect interestes in Iraq, how can that be hiring mercenaries, Blackwater is not a foreign company hired into foreign service???

If you would like to apply for a job with Blackwater as a Security Specialist you will find this at the beginning of every job listing requirement.....

QUALIFICATIONS:
U.S. Citizen
One (1) year experience in protective security assignments
Level 2 English proficiency

Wether its the New York Times or The Daily Express, most newspapers print third hand articles and print them in such a way for you read what they want you to read. I am not supporting any of this myself, and don't believe its necessarily a good thing, but rubbish is rubbish thats all I'm saying.

[Conscience]

"With every week of insurgency in a war zone with no front, these companies are becoming more deeply enmeshed in combat, in some cases all but obliterating distinctions between professional troops and private commandos. Company executives see a clear boundary between their defensive roles as protectors and the offensive operations of the military. But more and more, they give the appearance of private, for-profit militias — by several estimates, a force of roughly 20,000 on top of an American military presence of 130,000. "I refer to them as our silent partner in this struggle," Senator John W. Warner, the Virginia Republican and Armed Services Committee chairman, said in an interview."






"Pentagon and coalition authority officials said they had no precise tally of how many private security guards are being paid with government funds, much less how many have been killed or wounded. Yet some Democrats and others suggest that the Bush administration is relying on these companies to both mask the cost of the war and augment an overstretched uniformed force."

[MadPict]

They're not mercenaries. They are people employed in a security role to protect vulnerable 'assets'. Just because they come from a military background they are mercenaries? Errr, spend 9 years serving in the military then get demobbed there is not a lot of use for your training and skills in civvy street.

So what about the UK police officers sent to Iraq to retrain the Iraqi Police. Are they also mercenaries? They are being paid to be there. They are working to improve the lot of the Iraqi people. There are police officers from other nations also working out there. They're still over paid and over there....

http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1018027636137

[Conscience]

'Security role' etc. is just a euphemism for mercenary.

http://www.albionmonitor.com/0404a/iraqmercenaries.html

[Jeemag_USA]

'Security role' etc. is just a euphemism for mercenary.

http://www.albionmonitor.com/0404a/iraqmercenaries.html

HA HA HA come on, what absolute nonsense. You are just unwilling to listen to a point of view backed up with fact and not tabloid rubbish :L

Are you going to quote newspapers all day? Just because a newspaper chooses to misuse the term mercenary you are going to take it as gospel. They again Quote Blackwater USA, which is an american company hired by the USA which has a prerequisite to be a US Citizen to gain employment, therefore they are not mercenaries?

[Conscience]

HA HA HA come on, what absolute nonsense. You are just unwilling to listen to a point of view backed up with fact and not tabloid rubbish :L

Are you going to quote newspapers all day?


At least I have something to quote. You seem to have nothing, I have seen you post no 'facts'. Unless you think world opinion, world news agencies etc are all wrong and only you are right?

Would you consider the BBC as 'tabloid'? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3136428.stm

[Jeemag_USA]

At least I have something to quote. You seem to have nothing. Unless you think world opinion, world news agencies etc are all wrong and only you are right?

Would you consider the BBC as 'tabloid'? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3136428.stm

Unlike you I don't need to quote anyone, I am speaking for myself and using my own mind, you on the other hand surf for stuff you can use from newspapers, you can quote the Queen for all I care, I quoted someone else and asked how they came about the figure that 30%+ of the US Armed Forces do not have a green card, you choose to answer for that person so you are digging your own hole, and still haven't answered my question yourself, so its not worth arguing with you if you don't have your own theory on it all?

[Conscience]

I am not answering for anyone else. I am answering the assertion that there are no mercenaries in Iraq. This is plainly not true.

[Jeemag_USA]

Count the number of British soldiers out there. That is your number of mercenaries, sold into an illegal war by Poodle Blair.


No this was your answer to the question I asked Kellskogg.

Get your facts write and remember what you have written, you have not answered that question nor have you proved that there are no mercenaries in Iraq, an I didn't say their wasn't either, I am merely pointing out to you that in all the newspaper quotes you have shown, the poeple and companies in thos articles are NOT MERCENARIES, end of stories so you can take the cotton wool out of your lugs now.

[MadPict]

These Googleers can find all the Conspiracy ammo they could possibly desire by just spending time on the 'net. They have no interest if the facts are true or not, just as long as they fit into the warped view they have of the world and all its machinations.

There are familiar themes reappearing amongst the posts of fred and his new consort "Conscience" - I'd just laugh at their preposterous posts and be grateful there is better rubbish on the Tv right now....

[Kolskegg]

[quote=Jeemag_USA;And that doesn't cover the point that 30% + of the US Armed forces don't have a green card (none of them need one anyway because they are US Citizens).

Apologies, I should have been clearer. It's 30%+ who are fighting for the US military on the promise of a green card.

Service guarantees citizenship - Starship Troopers.

[Conscience]

No this was your answer to the question I asked Kellskogg.

Get your facts write and remember what you have written, you have not answered that question nor have you proved that there are no mercenaries in Iraq, an I didn't say their wasn't either, I am merely pointing out to you that in all the newspaper quotes you have shown, the poeple and companies in thos articles are NOT MERCENARIES, end of stories so you can take the cotton wool out of your lugs now.


I was not trying to prove there are no mercenaries in Iraq. I was proving there are.

If you want to let Government spin doctors pull the wool over your eyes that is your choice. If you want to ignore the world's news agencies that is your choice. But do not expect the rest of us who do observe the news to listen to you when you have nothing to back up your statements.

Whether you like it or not 'Security Firms' = Mercenaries. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4950004.stm

[MadPict]

Mercenaries are still the image in many people's minds of private warfare, but private companies now provide services ranging from personal security and weapons maintenance to the interrogation of prisoners.

These are all tasks which do not require a person trained to fight in a frontline scenario. These are support roles if you wish to call them that.
It frees up the fighting man or woman to do what they are paid to do which is kill the enemy.

This "privatisation" is nothing new. Civilian cooks taking over from the military cooks in service messes. Civilian engineers taking on the servicing of frontline aircraft in the RAF. Civilian mechanics involved in the servicing of vehicles and armour. Weapons used to be serviced by soldiers called armourers. It's now done by civvies. Medical staff that used to be military are now being replaced by civilians - military hospitals are being closed because the local NHS can treat the sickly serviceman or woman. The military is not what it used to be. It is now run by accountants and they push for cutbacks wherever they can.
Get the best bang for the buck.

[Conscience]

Those pesky mercenaries, sorry, I mean 'Private Security Personnel' wink wink, keep popping up everywhere... here they are on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=iraq+mercenaries&search=Search

[Jeemag_USA]

I was not trying to prove there are no mercenaries in Iraq. I was proving there are.

If you want to let Government spin doctors pull the wool over your eyes that is your choice. If you want to ignore the world's news agencies that is your choice. But do not expect the rest of us who do observe the news to listen to you when you have nothing to back up your statements.

Whether you like it or not 'Security Firms' equals Mercenaries. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4950004.stm

ok your going to have to explain to me how I am letting Government Spin Doctors pull wool over my eyes, quote me and prove how you know that to be true.

Most news agencies get their stories from the same sources, when news is slim most news agencies are experts in the craft of making a story where there is not one, this is a prime example.

Whether I like it or not - Security Firms + Merenaries. Oh so I have no choice in the matter, because you choose to believe everything you read in the paper, the word Mercenaries is now being replaced in dictionaries and encyclopeadies by "Security Firms"

Not once in our little discussion have I let outside sources or any other source cloud my OWN judgement.

I have merely pointed out fact to you, something youc an discover yourself outside of a NEWSPAPER. A mercenary has a distinct definition. The Security compnies involved are companies hired by their respective governments to maintain a specific task, in these companies the employees are required to hold citizenship, they are not employed in an aggressive nature and they are not at the forefront of military operations, they are not kicking in doors and searching for insurgents, the are protecting buildings and other interests where they are probably gaurding exits and entrances etc. The employees are paid by the company they work for, the compnay is contracted by the USA or the UK, therefore they cannot be called Mercenaries. The reason the newspapers are spinning this story is because they want to picture Wild Geese or Black and Tans roaming the streets shooting people, and unfortunately a lot of people get "the wool pulled over their eyes" by that.

There is nothing hidden in all of this, neither the US or UK goverment deny they are using security forces to protect vital installations, protect being the key word, its a defensive occupation, and in the interestes of protection fire will be met with fire and not before. So there is no story in that if its no big secret, but it can sure be made into one using trickery of words and willing listeners. ;)

The words "Sheep" and "Follow" come to mind (yawn)

[Conscience]

You have not let any outside influences inform you either. You have been conned by government spin doctors, they use the term 'Private Security Contractors' because they know the term 'Mercenaries' is a vote loser. You have swallowed their spin hook, line and sinker.

The BBC is not a newspaper.

[Jeemag_USA]

You have not let any outside influences inform you either. You have been con ned by the spin doctors, they use the term 'Private Security Contractors' because they know the term 'Mercenaries' is a vote loser. You have swallowed their spin hook, line and sinker.

The BBC is not a newspaper.

Prove it or stop babbling nonsense, I know I haven't!

You quoted http://news.bbc.co.uk (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4950004.stm) BBC News is a news agencies, your just nit picking because you don't have a mind to back yourself up.

[Conscience]

Prove it or stop babbling nonsense, I know I haven't!

I refer people to read your posts. All the proof is there for anyone to see. You post nothing to back up your arguments, you only post your own opinion. Unfortunately for you your opinion is not fact.

[Jeemag_USA]

I refer people to read your posts. All the proof is there for anyone to see. You post nothing to back up your arguments, you only post your own opinion. Unfortunately for you your opinion is not fact.

OK we will let everyone have a read and see what they think then :lol:

What a laugh you are. "Unfortunately your opinion is not your opinion" ;)

[Conscience]

I am glad I cheered up your day.

Here are some more references for you. You might like to add them to your bookmarks and check them out occasionally. In fairness I included three very different news sources:

BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/)

ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/)

CNN News (http://www.cnn.com/)

The FACT is there are MERCENARIES operating in Iraq. The FACT is many of them were hired by the Pentagon. The FACT is you are wrong. Have a nice day.

[Jeemag_USA]

OK you have a nice day too. I am sending you a new pair of blinkers as a belated Christmas present, I don't think your old ones are big enough :lol:

[Conscience]

OK you have a nice day too. I am sending you a new pair of blinkers as a belated Christmas present, I don't think your old ones are big enough :lol:

Better blinkered than blind.

[Jeemag_USA]

Apologies, I should have been clearer. It's 30%+ who are fighting for the US military on the promise of a green card.

Service guarantees citizenship - Starship Troopers.

Thankyou Kolskegg for your response, just found it amongst the witterings. I am not saying that is not possible but I doubt that figure is accurate. You cannot be in the direct employment of the US Armed Forces without Citizenship. If these people are working for the Security Services than that may be more likely, but which ones, the largest one in question is Blackwater USA which does require US Citizenship for employment. A green card is limited and only gives you residency in the USA, you still cannot claim benefits, you must have a sponsor either a friend or relative who can financially support you (they must be able to prove it with wage slips and savings accounts), you cannot vote nor can you join the army, so it wouldn't be about getting votes. I do know because I did have to go through the whole process of getting a green card and still hold one. Unlike Conscience would have people believe I don't believe everything I hear but would be genuinely interested in reading the source of that material. Thanks.

http://noisewhore.com/greencard.gif

[North Rhins]

Count the number of British soldiers out there. That is your number of mercenaries, sold into an illegal war by Poodle Blair.

So our British troops are now mercenaries are they? I’m sure that the men and women who serve this Country will be heartened to hear it. Wherever and whenever our troops are asked to serve, they do so without question and thus it has ever been.
The vitriolic, unfounded and uncalled for comments by this junior member ‘Conscience,’ is a disgrace. As I write this we have Caithness men serving in Basra. Members of the Territorial Army, volunteers each and every one of them. They carry on a proud tradition that has dug this country out of a sticky situation on more than one occasion.
I wonder if ‘Conscience’ would be so vocal if they were not hidden behind the curtain of anonymity? How about when the Lads get back from Basra, why don’t you arrange to meet them in a the back bar of Mackay’s Hotel and then tell them face to face that you regard them a bunch of mercenaries. The very best of luck to you.

I’ve attached a poem by Rudyard Kipling called ‘Tommy.’ It is a pertinent now as the day it was written.

Oh! Before I forget, ‘Conscience,’ yes, I was a ‘mercenary.’ I served this country and her people for nine years, and I’m damned proud of it.

I went into a public- 'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls behind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:
O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy go away";
But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins," when the band begins to play-
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's "Thank you Mr Atkins," when the band begins to play.
I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian roo, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fighting', Lord! They'll shove me in the stalls!
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy wait outside";
But it's "Special train for Atkins," when the trooper's on the tide-
The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
O it's "Special train for Atkins," when the trooper's on the tide.
Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy 'ow's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll-
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's " Thin red line of 'eroes," when the drums begin to roll.
We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,
Why single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy fall be'ind,"
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind-
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
O it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind.
You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck 'im out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!
By Rudyard Kipling, 1892

[Jeemag_USA]

Count the number of British soldiers out there. That is your number of mercenaries, sold into an illegal war by Poodle Blair.

Looking forward to you backing up your facts now :lol:

[Conscience]

North Rhins and JeemagUSA. I refer you both to post 15 on page one of this thread.

[Jeemag_USA]

North Rhins and JeemagUSA. I refer you both to post 15 on page one of this thread.

So you denigrated them and humiliated them, whats worse you referred only to the British Troops and not to American, German, Australian etc so only the British Troops are mercenaries as you directly said, and then because you said you aren't denigrating them its fine. Got ya, understood. :)

[Conscience]

Can you actually read? I did not denigrate the troops. They have my full support, even if I do not support the illegal war they have been made to fight. I was denigrating Tony Blair.

[Jeemag_USA]

Count the number of British soldiers out there. That is your number of mercenaries

If the above quote says "My Donkey has Two heads and a box of cornflakes" then no I cannot read.


the illegal war they have been made to fight

Are British Troops forced to fight. Sorry I didn't know they brought back the draft in the UK either. If you choose to join the British Armed Forces you do so from your own free will in the knowledge you will be required to partake in combat at your governments bidding. You're only making it worse.

Better blinkered than blind as you say ;)

[MadPict]

Pedal backwards faster Conscience - looks like the Basra Boys may well have a bone to pick with you.....


Message received from Capt KC Mackay in Basra by Bill Fernie a few minutes ago - - -

On behalf of the Lads from SF Platoon Wick I would like to thank you for taking the time and effort to support us out here in Basra.

We have all marvelled at the support shown through the Caithness.org pages and often click on to see what has been posted.


(My emphasis)

[Conscience]

No backpedalling here. You and the other Bush poodles are twisting my words thats all. I know what I wrote and I know what I meant, and I do not retract a single word of it. Veiled threats from an armchair soldier won't change that.

[porshiepoo]

O ecky thump, this ones caused a stir hasn't it. I've forgotten what the actual original thread was about, something akin to Husseins execution I think.

No matter what name is given to the courageous souls that take an oath to defend their country, I for one thank them. For every war they protect us from - whatever the reason, whatever the outcome - I thank each and every one of them, no matter how they came to be there in the first place.

I come from a family with a history of forces - dad in the RAF, uncles in the Navy, father in law in the army and brother a police inspector and I understand completely the sacrifice that they make in order to defend a country that is much of the time ungrateful of that defence.

Personally I could care less what name is given to them, to me they're heroes, each and every one of them.

[Conscience]

Please explain to me, how exactly are the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq 'defending our country'? Since neither of those were a threat to us before the illegal invasion?

[Jeemag_USA]

Of course you can't backpedal when there is nothing relevant to backpedal through, the only thing you really posted from your own head were your words on british Soldiers being mercenaries then you just quoted a bunch of newspapers. By the time of the next election in the USA I will be registered to vote, and I will be in line first thing in the morning to vote out the remnants of bush's regime. You have not posted anything of your own mind and your username is an irony in itself. Sorry but its there for everyone to see and read. I do not support the war in Iraq and never have done, but I would never pour scorn on the individuals who put themselves on the firing line on a daily basis, I would not use them as a demonstration of how I dislike their president or prime minister either. Also if I ever say anything as stupid as that I will retract it because I am a big enough to know when i am wrong and you can quote me on that in your quote fests.

[MadPict]

Hahaha - a Bush poodle. Such a cutting insult.

We know what you wrote as well and the intention is quite clear in your words "Count the number of British soldiers out there. That is your number of mercenaries..."

Here is a list of those mercenaries killed in Iraq....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3847051.stm

And a bit further from home....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5121552.stm

[fred]

True but in this country we do not have the death penalty, for which I am thankful, and I do not believe we should condone it elsewhere. It seems that, as with everything else in this wretched war, Britain has no influence here. I do not believe Saddam is sane, which is hardly surprising given his nightmare childhood, but if he were the worst punishment would be for him to finally realise and regret what he has done. The only possible alternative to death for him is imprisonment for life - and that means until he dies - which poses other problems.


I don't think that I would class Saddam as insane, not as evill as he has been painted but a bad man nevertheless, a brutal dictator but rational. Bush on the other hand I am in no doubt about, he's a pathalogical liar with no regard for the rules of law or society and no concern for what disasterous effects his selfish and reckless actions might have on others or remorse afterwards.

A classic sociopath.

[Jeemag_USA]

Please explain to me, how exactly are the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq 'defending our country'? Since neither of those were a threat to us before the illegal invasion?

The theory is where terrorists are allowed to bloom and train and operate from a base, they do so to attack as they have done innocent people in the USA and in the UK and in Spain and in France and other countries. Why don't you ask the families of the casualties in the London Bus Bombings why our troops are trying to help rid the world of terrorist strongholds. Now I am not saying it is either right or wrong, but you did ask for a reason, if you have been watching or reading the newspapers you love so much since 2002 you would not need to ask.

[Conscience]

Hahaha - a Bush poodle. Such a cutting insult.

We know what you wrote as well and the intention is quite clear in your words "Count the number of British soldiers out there. That is your number of mercenaries..."

Is this typical of the behaviour of Moderators on this forum? That they mock and ridicule those who disagree with their opinions? I joined this forum because I was told it was a good place full of good people. However, if the moderators behave this way, what does that say for the average members?

[jamieS]

Anyway guys/gals, trying to get the thread back on topic...

Sky news is currently reporting (speculating) that Sadam will be executed within the next 24 hours and the way he will be executed is through the rules he himself introduced many years ago.

[porshiepoo]

Is this typical of the behaviour of Moderators on this forum? That they mock and ridicule those who disagree with their opinions? I joined this forum because I was told it was a good place full of good people. However, if the moderators behave this way, what does that say for the average members?

Don't be so childish just because people aren't bending to your will.
Moderators are just as entitled to an opinion as everyone else as uses this forum, contrary to what you obviously believe, they didn't sign away this right just because they bacame moderators.

Now grow up, stop nit picking and changing the subject and get back to defending yourself.......... if you can! :lol:

[North Rhins]

No backpedalling here. You and the other Bush poodles are twisting my words thats all. I know what I wrote and I know what I meant, and I do not retract a single word of it. Veiled threats from an armchair soldier won't change that.

Maybe I am being paranoid buy but are you referring to me as the ‘armchair soldier?’

[Conscience]

No I'm not.

[Jeemag_USA]

I don't think that I would class Saddam as insane, not as evill as he has been painted but a bad man nevertheless, a brutal dictator but rational. Bush on the other hand I am in no doubt about, he's a pathalogical liar with no regard for the rules of law or society and no concern for what disasterous effects his selfish and reckless actions might have on others or remorse afterwards.

A classic sociopath.

I am somewhat inclined to agree with you Fred. The History of Saddam goes back a long way, there is no doubt he is a bit of a tyrant. But you need to follow the story all the way back to the days of the Shah of Iran to get a clear picture on the whole situation we have today, its been well covered numerous times how Saddam got to power, and even then we cannot possibly know how much of we watch and read is truth and non truth. George Bush is not all there, thats plain to see, the thing that sickens me a lot is how he uses the "patriotic" vote whenever he gets backed into a corner its always well be proud of this and fly the flag and all this sort of thing because he knows a lot of americans love patriotism. But fortunately there are also a lot of very sensible sane rational americans too who can see through most of it and hopefully after he is gone things will become a little more rational over here.

There has been a lot of atrocities in Iraq expecially in Kurdistan, all or some of which may be attributed to Saddam, but in such a large country and with an army of so many leaders under him, its not easy to get all the evidence on who was responsible for what. Despite his barbarity he did make Iraq a more advanced country than it ever was. I also have a feeling that Iraq will be in a situation of turmoil for some considerable years, possibly decades and their system of government now with its different parites which some of them are of different religions is open to outside influence from neighboring countries such as Iran, Syria etc.....

The sad fact of it all is that many countries including the ones we live in have been party to mass killings of foreign natives, and like someone said dwelling on the past is not something that will help, and it is ironic. But how to fix it all is the problem. I really believe some countries can work with a government and some just work better with a leader, and if someone says "you will" use this system of government, its kind of like saying you will stop carrots and eat peas instead. Some people just function better under a ruler. But that does not mean Rulers should be evil. And if I think anyone is party to mas murder or terror on innocent victims in this day and age then they deserve the punishment of a killer whatever it is deemed to be.

[MadPict]

Thank you porshiepoo for that.

For your info Conscience, I type as a member of the forums. I have been here a long time now and I think I am allowed to state my views however I wish, as long as I do not abuse anyone in the process. I have been a Mod for 4 months. Where I have unintentionally upset someone in the past I have apologised. I am more than happy to do so again if I need to.

But you are just spouting utter rubbish here based on what you have found on the internet. You HAVE insulted the men and women of our armed forces, irrespective of how you try to wriggle out of it by referring to them as mercenaries. I see it as my right to counter such a disgraceful accusation about them when they are in no position to do so themselves.

[Jeemag_USA]

Is this typical of the behaviour of Moderators on this forum? That they mock and ridicule those who disagree with their opinions? I joined this forum because I was told it was a good place full of good people. However, if the moderators behave this way, what does that say for the average members?

You think anyone is going to take that seriously from a person whose first post in here was to call British Troops mercaneries and then completely blinker themselves to other peoples opinions, and then call them Bush Poodles, what does that say for the sensible people coming in to find sensible people and finding you. What a neep! The moderator in question said nothing wrong, you calling people Bush Poodles is both vey funny and ironic.

[Conscience]

If you want to interpret my words that way, then it is you who is being insulting. It is quite plain I was insulting Tony Blair. I said the 'Private Security Firms' are the mercenaries no one else. I retract NOTHING.

And finding stuff on the internet, wake up, that is what it is for. To disseminate information. If reading news sites and researching information is utter rubbish, then how else do you learn?

[Jeemag_USA]

Count the number of British soldiers out there. That is your number of mercenaries, sold into an illegal war by Poodle Blair.

Re:Re:Re: I don't see mention of Private Security Firms in that ;)

Insults, you called me a BUsh Poodle and someone else an Armchair Soldier :lol:

[North Rhins]

No backpedalling here. You and the other Bush poodles are twisting my words thats all. I know what I wrote and I know what I meant, and I do not retract a single word of it. Veiled threats from an armchair soldier won't change that.

Now I know that I'm not the 'armchair soldier,' I feel it's safe to submit another reply.

I don't have any poodles, however, I do have three Border Terriers, will that suffice?

[Conscience]

'sold into an illegal war by Poodle Blair.' IOf you cannot understand the meaning of that...

Looks like this conversation is going nowhere intelligent, so this 'neep' will bow out. I leave you to mock and ridicule the next person who has a differing opinion to yours.

[Jeemag_USA]

Now I know that I'm not the 'armchair soldier,' I feel it's safe to submit another reply.

I don't have any poodles, however, I do have three Border Terriers, will that suffice?

Which side of the Border do your Terriers come from, they may be classed as Mercenary Terriers, you need to check on that (just kidding) :lol:

[MadPict]

I said the 'Private Security Firms' are the mercenaries no one else.


Count the number of British soldiers out there. That is your number of mercenaries, sold into an illegal war by Poodle Blair.

Hmmmmm....Nope. It's there in black and white (or greyish blue). Definitely says "Count the number of British soldiers out there. That is your number of mercenaries..."

Jeemag - I'm the poodle - get your own doggy alter ego !!! Pitbull perhaps?[lol]

[Jeemag_USA]

I just received bad rep from Consciensce...

http://forum.caithness.org/images/reputation/reputation_balance.gifexecution this weekend! (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=176925#post176925)29-12-2006 14:38Conscience (http://forum.caithness.org/member.php?u=4842)There is no need for personal insult

How ironic is that, I am a Bush Poodle along with several other insults in this thread, and I could if I was fickle enough have already given bad rep to Consciense but I wouldn't stoop that low. Wipe your feet on the way out.

[MadPict]

No backpedalling here. You and the other Bush poodles are twisting my words thats all. I know what I wrote and I know what I meant, and I do not retract a single word of it. Veiled threats from an armchair soldier won't change that.

Well there's no need for personal insult.....

And if it ain't North Rhins who is fighting from his armchair then who is?

[fred]

The theory is where terrorists are allowed to bloom and train and operate from a base, they do so to attack as they have done innocent people in the USA and in the UK and in Spain and in France and other countries. Why don't you ask the families of the casualties in the London Bus Bombings why our troops are trying to help rid the world of terrorist strongholds. Now I am not saying it is either right or wrong, but you did ask for a reason, if you have been watching or reading the newspapers you love so much since 2002 you would not need to ask.

Yes but there wern't actually any terrorist bases in Iraq until after we invaded apart from one or two in the Kurdish north which America had more control over than Saddam. It was America who formed, financed and armed Al Qaeda, Saddam would have nothing to do with them.

The terrorists in Iraq today are there as a result of the invasion, they wern't there before it.

[North Rhins]

Which side of the Border do your Terriers come from, they may be classed as Mercenary Terriers, you need to check on that (just kidding) :lol:

Two English, Gloucestershire & Cumbria and one Jock, sorry un PC, one Scottish. They all fight with each other, so I don’t think that there’s anything ‘mercenary’ going on.

[Jeemag_USA]

Yes but there wern't actually any terrorist bases in Iraq until after we invaded apart from one or two in the Kurdish north which America had more control over than Saddam. It was America who formed, financed and armed Al Qaeda, Saddam would have nothing to do with them.

The terrorists in Iraq today are there as a result of the invasion, they wern't there before it.

Correct. I was merely putting forward the general theory behind it all, not my own view. The War on Terrorism was the excuse the Bush Family were waiting for to get Saddam, possibly :)

[jamieS]

Correct. I was merely putting forward the general theory behind it all, not my own view. The War on Terrorism was the excuse the Bush Family were waiting for to get Saddam, possibly :)

Possibly even 'Doing what daddy couldn't do'

[Jeemag_USA]

Possibly even 'Doing what daddy couldn't do'

Or maybe doing what daddy says or your grounded, but thats maybe a conversation for another day and I need to be careful what I say I might lose my green card. There will be a mercenary at my door tomorrow with a big muckle pair o' scissors to cut it in half :lol:

[fred]

Possibly even 'Doing what daddy couldn't do'

Possibly even shattering the Iraqi economy forcing them to go cap in hand to the World Bank so that Wolfowitz could insist they pass a law turning over their oil reserves to foreign corporations.

[jamieS]

Be it for oil, terrorisom, 'daddy says so' or what ever, will the world ever know the truth behind it?
As for our troops out there, they are doing a fantastic job with the little resources they have. Infact all the allied troops out in the middle east are doing a brave, courageous and demanding task and I would wish them all a safe time and hope they all return to their loved ones.

[fred]

Be it for oil, terrorisom, 'daddy says so' or what ever, will the world ever know the truth behind it?
As for our troops out there, they are doing a fantastic job with the little resources they have. Infact all the allied troops out in the middle east are doing a brave, courageous and demanding task and I would wish them all a safe time and hope they all return to their loved ones.

I'm sure there are good and bad among troops just as there are good and bad among any other section of society.

There is a web site http://www.mfaw.org.uk/ (http://www.mfaw.org.uk/hickey/index.html) I've been looking in on regularly for a long while, it's quite informative.

[JAWS]

China has executed more people in the last three months than the rest of the World has in the last three years. Amnesty International.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1425570.stm

Libya has sentenced a Palestinian Doctor and five Bulgarian Nurses to death for infecting children with HIV-AIDS. Experts from many different countries have confirmed that the infections would have already taken place prior to the time the accused were alleged to have been involved.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6192599.stm

Have I missed some threads about these subjects or have they just been dumped into the “We can’t blame Bush or Blair so who cares about them!” with the rest of such inconvenient matters?

“All Execution victims are Equal! But some are more equal than others!”

Are there some threads I have missed or is it just that the "wrong" Countries are carrying out the executions.

One Country alone executes more people in a three month period than the whole of the rest of the World does in three whole years and not one word is said about it from some quarters who claim to be so very concerned about such matters - but only when it is Politically Advantageous for their propaganda purposes!

Funny what you find when you check the News Links recommended by others.
Now let me think, what was it again that I was supposed to be reading there. Can somebody remind me please, I do seem to be so forgetful these days, I do seem to keep finding things I am not meant to be looking for.

[Conscience]

Jaws, did I make your walk uncomfortable? Sorry bout that. :D

[Kolskegg]

Some thoughts from the Iraqi blogger Riverbend:

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_riverbendblog_archive.html#116738820591 750213

[Jeemag_USA]

Also for people's general interst I'd like to post this link for people who may have never know about it, its for the online library of human atrocities at Amnesty International.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/engindex

[oldmarine]

Now theye are considering opening recruiting stations in foreign countries and offering US citizenship as an incentive to enlist.


That has been going on for many years. Many servicemen have received citizenship by way of serving in USA armed forces.

[fred]

Are there some threads I have missed or is it just that the "wrong" Countries are carrying out the executions.


JAWS that's all adequately reported in the press, if you want to know about them just pick up a paper or turn on the TV, you don't need me for that.

Did you have any valid arguments on this topic?

[MadPict]

oldmarine,
And what about the dastardly French? Using criminals and people on the run from 'whatever' in a Legion to serve France? And then they can apply for French citizenship after a certain time.

Zoot alors.......

[brandy]

wow, was not really expecting all this when i posted! *grins*
but it does show one all the mixed emotions on what is going on in iraq.
personally, i think the war is just a useless wat of human life.. on all sides!
there was never any reason for it.. but hey the powers that be said lets go to war.. so we did.
i do applaud our men and women who are there.. doing what they have to do, when they would rather do anything else in the world.
we also have to remember that there are those out their that are heartless, and do not see compasion and humanity, and are on a killing rampage.
sometimes soldiers snap, and the sons and daughters that we know and love disapear and a monster arises.
that is what war is. they kill the innocent, and they enjoy it.
many times they snap out of it, and often kill theirselves or live the rest of their lives tortured by the things they have done.
sometimes, it consumes them.. but again that is what war does..
it destroys us body and soul.
in the past year.. we have heard thru the media.. how many soldiers have commited suicide.. went awol.. or even recently ben killed by police for holing up in their homes to stop from going back.
yet the gov. is crying out for more soldiers.. and more fighting.. when we can clearly hear and see that the people are begging for peace and an end to the madness.
when this started with 9/11 (nope dont mean the whole caboodle.. just the "war on terror!"
it was suppose to be to go into afghanastan and root out osama bin laden, and take down his regime.
however that seems to have completley faded into obscurity now.
no one seems to know .. if hes alive or dead.. or where he is.. anywhere bar iraq!
honestly i think that bush is just as bad, as any dictator.. he just hides it behind the cloak of democracy.
will bush be held accountable for war crimes?
he hasnt handed down a handwritten order saying to commit genocide.. but we see all the many many bodies.. all the hundreds of poor villagers.. many women children and elderly.. every day beign drug away and put into mass graves.
i have been thinking about this all day. i dont like the way i feel about this execution. i knew it was coming. even said yup he deserves it..
but its feels like that every bad thing that has ever happened is being laid at saddams door, when he is just ONE of the players.
what about all the other ones?
i didint know about china, but it dosent surprise me..
i dont even know the exact number of executions in america in a year.
but i do feel that the whole world is just holding their breath waiting for sadam to hang.. as if the hand of GOD himself.. is coming down to do it.
i dont know how to express what i am feeling..
its kinda as if.. yes just get it done and over with.. he deserves it .. but at the same time.. what good will it do,
what will it change?
will it make everything better?
will it set an example?
i hope it will make all the world rulers realise that they are not infallable.
at one time saddam himself thought that no one would ever be able to touch him.
let us hope that , a light will go on somewhere to make certain peoples think.
hey i cant do what i want. i can not be a despot and dress it up.
i will be held accountable for the things i have done.
and hopefully the peoples will take up that call
and take a stand and make their leaders realise that they will not follow like helpless sheep.. that if they rule badly that they will rise up .. and they will be made to pay for their crimes.
wow, thats a lot to get off my chest!
i hope that it made some sence..
just trying to get it straight in my head.. as its more feeling than logical thought..

[Piglet]

on sky news it says it is going to happen between 2.30 - 3am our time.

[jamieS]

Saddam has been executed...3.08am the report came through.

Regardless of what we think of the death penalty, this must be a sense of justice/relief to all the families that he had killed over the years. Keeping him alive would only provoke rescue attempts and more loss of life and probably to the allied troops over there.
I am watching sky new news at the moment and there is a crowd of Iraqi exiles in Detroit celebrating his death.

What happpens now?

[Jeemag_USA]

Just checked in and saw your post, watching it on CNN now, they are showing the Iraqui's in Michigan. It says it has been reported by Arab Media, so will that mean its for sure or not? I guess we just have to wait and see what happens now, I seriously don't think its going to do anything to ease trouble in Iraq, I think the fact that for some Iraquis have known Saddam is not a threat is why there is so much civil unrest going on everyday, the darker side of the Iraqui population and the incoming insurgents from other nations have no fear at the moment.

[jamieS]

I turned it over to Al Jazeera Eng and they have now reported it...about 10 mins after Sky New...they even had his lawyers speaking live in cairo while it was happening...
No I dont think it is going to make much of a difference out there, if anything may increase the amount of 'suicide bombers' that they have.

[Jeemag_USA]

More bad feedback for this thread, very interesting, maybe Stumrurf would like the opportunity to point out where I was misquoting people and who was the antagoniser in this thread seeing as he/she couldn't have read it all

http://forum.caithness.org/images/reputation/reputation_balance.gifexecution this weekend! (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=176907#post176907)29-12-2006 22:51Stumurf (http://forum.caithness.org/member.php?u=4220)blatant stirring, mis quoting and plain antagonism, and not for humourous effect

Watch out for mercenaries and mouse clicking assasins ;)

[baggie boy]

Saddam was executed at 3am local time (6am Iraqi time). Bomb explosion in iraq kills 30 people. Is this the start of civil war in Iraq?

[Conscience]

Saddam was executed at 3am local time (6am Iraqi time). Bomb explosion in iraq kills 30 people. Is this the start of civil war in Iraq?

The Iraq civil war has been happening for nearly a year now at least. Car bombs go off with depressing regularity, usually taking a lot of innocent people with them.
What is sickening is the deafening silence at these tragedies. Our own July 7th tragedy of 54 people being brutally murdered by brainwashed young people/terrorists in London is mourned and is rightly remembered. But such things happen almost every day in Iraq, and no one says anything.

[Conscience]

Iraqi justice has been done. Saddam has been rightly held to account.

Unfortunately he was permitted, at his own request, to not have a hood over his head, and so his supporters will now have a bigger 'hero' to hold up as their martyr. This would have been better done without comment beyond 'Saddam has been hanged and is dead'.

Lets hope this will not be the spark that ignites the inferno in Iraq, and possibly beyond.

[mareng]

Can't see why there should be more deaths in Iraq because of this.....

Whatever weapons they have - they were always intent on using.

[Ricco]

Even in his death SAddam is dominating ours lives - here in England there is nothing else on the news. I think they should just announce it and be done. They are just highlighting his status by making him a major part of our news.[evil]

[porshiepoo]

I don't think they'd get away with 'just announcing it and be done'.
To some people it's of great interest.
Wonder how long before the video is on ogrish.com? Not that I frequent such sites :roll:

[badger]

I felt physically sick listening to the report on the radio for the first time this morning. Interesting isn't it that so much air time has been given to the death of this one man while around 500 people are believed lost from a ferry near Java and barely get a mention. Obviously the execution of Saddam is more than the death of one man but if those 500 people had been in Europe I suspect the balance of reporting would have been rather different.

[North Rhins]

So he’s gone. I don’t have a problem with his execution but I do have with the way it was carried out. I never thought I would say this, but from what I have seen on the TV, the only dignified person at the gallows was Saddam. I think this televised episode just highlights the huge gulf that exists between our two very different cultures.
He undoubtedly deserved to die, but was it really necessary to be done this way.
I doubt if his death will make one iota of difference to what is happening over there. It’s virtually civil war, one sect against another.

[fred]

Saddam has been executed...3.08am the report came through.

Regardless of what we think of the death penalty, this must be a sense of justice/relief to all the families that he had killed over the years. Keeping him alive would only provoke rescue attempts and more loss of life and probably to the allied troops over there.
I am watching sky new news at the moment and there is a crowd of Iraqi exiles in Detroit celebrating his death.

What happpens now?

What happens now is that Saddam becomes a martyr. Sky News will show you a few exiles in Detroit celebrating his death but not the masses preparing to avenge it then in days to come when the blood of British and American innocents is spilt some liar can stand up and say "It's because they are jealous of our freedom" and the fools will believe it because they want to believe it but the truth is their fates were sealed on the eve of Eid al-Adha.

"God is great. The nation will be victorious and Palestine is Arab".

[MadPict]

Nice of the hangmen to put a nice thick scarf round Saddam's neck before they slipped what appeared to be a very thick and solid noose over his noggin. Now, if they hung him, did they actually kill him? If the noose is not positioned correctly the neck is not broken by the drop. He would slowly (emphasis on slowly) be strangled. So they video the "execution" which is also witnessed, a "doctor" pronounces him "dead" and his body is removed for secret burial.

Or is it?

Stick this in your conspiracy pipe and have a good toke.....

[brandy]

one thing i do not agree with in this execution that has just come to my attention.
under the law, there can be no executions on holy days and during religious holidays.. well today is the begining of Eid Al-Adha -- a holiday period that means Feast of the Sacrifice, celebrated by Muslims around the world at the climax of the hajj pilgrimage to Mecca
the sunni begin their holy day on sat. and the shiites on sun. saddam was a sunni.
i find in my personal oppinion that this will just rub salt into the wounds of many.
he could have easily been executed 4 days from now after the religious holiday, as is their laws.

[brandy]

as for the scarf.. that is common practice. saddam refused the hood, i did a serch of executions and hangings and in most of them the persons were wearing scarves around their necks.
what i was trying to figure out.. what was the drop beneath the board.. enough to snap his neck or let him slowly strangle?

[Conscience]

An executioner has been quoted as saying 'I heard his neck snap'. Also pictures of his body have just been broadcast. His neck looked broken to me because his head was twisted all the way to one side and was not facing up.

[fred]

one thing i do not agree with in this execution that has just come to my attention.
under the law, there can be no executions on holy days and during religious holidays.. well today is the begining of Eid Al-Adha -- a holiday period that means Feast of the Sacrifice, celebrated by Muslims around the world at the climax of the hajj pilgrimage to Mecca
the sunni begin their holy day on sat. and the shiites on sun. saddam was a sunni.
i find in my personal oppinion that this will just rub salt into the wounds of many.
he could have easily been executed 4 days from now after the religious holiday, as is their laws.

Yes Feast of the Sacrifice, the sacrifice it celebrates was the sacrifice of Abraham who was prepared to sacrifice his son to the Lord but the Lord took mercy and allowed him to sacrifice a lamb instead. In the Muslem world it is a time for mercy and forgiveness.

[Conscience]

Then Saddam just got the mercy and forgiveness he showed so well during his reign.

[fred]

Then Saddam just got the mercy and forgiveness he showed so well during his reign.

The problem with "an eye for an eye" is that everyone ends up blind.

Even Saddam released prisoners at Eid al-Adha.

[Stumurf]

PM sent, outlining it all... feel free to post that too.. although i would ask that you leave my comments about the british army out of the post as i refrained from airing my true opnions on other places on this board. i have decided to remain silent as this board has family connections with them. and my opinions would not be welcome and out of respect for the people here i have remained silent.

my opinions are my own and backed by moral guidance. and usually quite a lot of research.

i on the other hand wont be posting your message. and not for any kind of moral one up man ship, purely because it was a "personal" message.

i have deliberately stayed out of this thread because a contribution to this mmensely contentious issue would involve me writing a dissertation so that my opinions could be understood in their correct context. and to also attempt to address all the factors surrounding this issue, that have eventually given me my position on all this, sadly i do not have time for.

i am sorry you felt the need to do ths jeemag.


More bad feedback for this thread, very interesting, maybe Stumrurf would like the opportunity to point out where I was misquoting people and who was the antagoniser in this thread seeing as he/she couldn't have read it all

http://forum.caithness.org/images/reputation/reputation_balance.gifexecution this weekend! (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=176907#post176907)29-12-2006 22:51Stumurf (http://forum.caithness.org/member.php?u=4220)blatant stirring, mis quoting and plain antagonism, and not for humourous effect

Watch out for mercenaries and mouse clicking assasins ;)

[Jeemag_USA]

PM sent, outlining it all... feel free to post that too.. although i would ask that you leave my comments about the british army out of the post as i refrained from airing my true opnions on other places on this board. i have decided to remain silent as this board has family connections with them. and my opinions would not be welcome and out of respect for the people here i have remained silent.

my opinions are my own and backed by moral guidance. and usually quite a lot of research.

i on the other hand wont be posting your message. and not for any kind of moral one up man ship, purely because it was a "personal" message.

i have deliberately stayed out of this thread because a contribution to this mmensely contentious issue would involve me writing a dissertation so that my opinions could be understood in their correct context. and to also attempt to address all the factors surrounding this issue, that have eventually given me my position on all this, sadly i do not have time for.

i am sorry you felt the need to do ths jeemag.

You accused me of misquoting people when I have not done this at all, if you did read the thread properly you will see that in my first two posts I said nothing wrong and was commenting on what was said before, I also asked Kolskegg about his post because I was genuinely interested in it. It was not I who came back and answered for someone else opening my response by calling British Troops Mercenaries and it was not I who started any antagonism or any stirring, and I am sorry but when someone is clearly continuing on a line of action to bait everyone in the thread and not just me which is what happened here then they deserve all the humourus effect I can muster. So you can be proud of your misplaced use of the rep tool, if you feel so strongly about it then you should have said so here first instead of point, click and run. I am not going to take blame for someone elses rubbish, I did nothing wrong in here and I have as much good rep for this thread as the bad you and Conscience gave me.

[Conscience]

And yet you are still deliberately misquoting me. I did not say British troops are mercenaries. I said they were sold into an illegal war by Tony Blair. And I already said I was not answering for someone else, so there you go again making false accusations.


'but when someone is clearly continuing on a line of action to bait everyone in the thread and not just me which is what happened here then they deserve all the humourus effect I can muster'

So if people disagree with you, and then hold their ground in the discussion, that gives you the right to be sarcastic, rude and derisive towards them does it? Do you include starting a thread purely to create an argument or to pick on another member in your reasoning?
Also, if someone acts badly, or deliberately tries to wind people up, then giving them negative feedback is not 'misplaced use of the rep tool'. Maybe if you weren't so antagonistic, you would not have received negative feedback.

[Jeemag_USA]

Count the number of British soldiers out there. That is your number of mercenaries, sold into an illegal war by Poodle Blair.

I can't misquote people, if I go to your original post and click on quote it puts it up there for me, how many times does that have to be said before you realise it?

[MadPict]

well today is the begining of Eid Al-Adha

Oh and the murdering insurgent scum that are slaughtering innocent Iraqis observe this little holiday period don't they.....


An executioner has been quoted as saying 'I heard his neck snap'.

I heard the sound of Santa's sleigh last week too....



His neck looked broken to me because his head was twisted all the way to one side and was not facing up.


Oh, thats so hard to feign. "Here Saddam, Just make sure your head is lying over as far to one side when we lift the shroud..."



In the Muslem world it is a time for mercy and forgiveness.

Nah, just another excuse to shred a few more shi'ites and sunnis....



And once again, Conscience YOU DID call British Troops mercenaries. End of.

Edit

So, you don't like my line of conspiracy theorism - Saying you hear something does not make it true. Saying you see something dose not make it fact. Smoke and mirrors. You're happy to throw your conspiracy theories into this mix but when someone else does so you cry foul ? What makes my CT less valid than your PMC Mercenary in Iraq posts?

[Conscience]

And once again, Conscience YOU DID call British Troops mercenaries. End of.


No I did not. Read it again. I would give you more negative feedback for being sarcastic and deliberately antagonistic, but apparently I have to 'share it around'.

[Conscience]

Edit

So, you don't like my line of conspiracy theorism - Saying you hear something does not make it true. Saying you see something dose not make it fact. Smoke and mirrors. You're happy to throw your conspiracy theories into this mix but when someone else does so you cry foul ? What makes my CT less valid than your PMC Mercenary in Iraq posts?

Because yours is nothing but idle speculation, whereas I backed my statements up with documented facts.

[MadPict]

You can give me as much as you like - See the little grey square? It means it's turned off. I have chosen not to participate in the rep system because of its openess to misuse and abuse by people who don't have the spine to actually say what they mean in an open forum.
Now, as it is the season of good will blah blah, I am more than happy for someone else to receive whatever barbed comment you had aimed at me. :D


Because yours is nothing but idle speculation, whereas I backed my statements up with documented facts.


Ahh, but at what point does idle speculation become fact? And Fact dissolve into idle speculation? And documented facts? Off the internet?

Is this fact? http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm

Or fiction?
Could it all really have an end?
So many questions and so little time....

[Conscience]

You can give me as much as you like - See the little grey square? It means it's turned off. I have chosen not to participate in the rep system because of its openess to misuse and abuse by people who don't have the spine to actually say what they mean in an open forum.
Now, as it is the season of good will blah blah, I am more than happy for someone else to receive whatever barbed comment you had aimed at me. :D

If people were not supposed to give negative feedback as well as positive feedback, then the system would not allow it. If you made your points without the antagonism you might have got positive feedback.

Ps. I believe my previous post said what I mean on open forum. :)

[Jeemag_USA]

If people were not supposed to give negative feedback as well as positive feedback, then the system would not allow it. If you made your points without the antagonism you might have got positive feedback.

Ps. I believe my previous post said what I mean on open forum. :)

Answering someone else question that was directed at another forum member with your own views on British Troops and Blair, and then going on to call people Bush Poodles and Armchair Soldiers, your still an angel aren't you. People in glass houses.

[Boozeburglar]

Carry on like this and the thread will disappear, then who will benefit from your collective insight?

Merry Christmas everyone!

[changilass]

Is this fact? http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm



Awww madpict, please tell me everyting I read in the internet aint true:(

I have finished reading all my books, honest:lol:

[MadPict]

I would give you more negative feedback for being sarcastic and deliberately antagonistic...
You missed the bit about me being deliberately stupid. Now I don't think the rep system is meant for the passing of insults....

[Conscience]

You missed the bit about me being deliberately stupid. Now I don't think the rep system is meant for the passing of insults....

I believe I actually said 'deliberately obtuse', which means 'to deliberately appear to misunderstand'. Nowhere did I use the word 'stupid', that is an addition entirely of your own.

[MadPict]

Like so many things it is how I perceive your words that matters, not how you intended them.
To me "obtuse" means someone slow or dimwitted, stupid, unintelligent etc etc.

But then this is drawing this thread further off topic...

[Conscience]

Like so many things it is how I perceive your words that matters, not how you intended them.
To me "obtuse" means someone slow or dimwitted, stupid, unintelligent etc etc.

But then this is drawing this thread further off topic...


Actually it is how I meant them that is more important, seeing as I wrote them. Or do you claim to be all seeing and all knowing and able to speak for everyone other than yourself?

Dragging the thread off topic? As a moderator surely you should know better than to do that, and therefore should be setting the example instead of endlessly dragging out a pointless disagreement?

I said it previously, and I will say it again. If you are an example moderation on this site, what does that say to the rest of the members? To me it says you moderate with the rule 'Do as I say, not as I do'. Thats how I PERCEIVE it.

[brandy]

madpict, if the gov. that is ruling the country does not observe its own laws, then how can they ever hope that its peoples will?
as we have seen from the posts here how easy it is for tempers to rise and flare, human nature in itself is very volatile.. so we have to try and ease things whenever we can. im trying to figure out if he was executed on friday now as my mum seems to think he was. as to advoid the holy day.
so not to sure.

[fred]

Nah, just another excuse to shred a few more shi'ites and sunnis....


You percieve all Muslems as "murdering insurgent scum" as you call them?

[fred]

madpict, if the gov. that is ruling the country does not observe its own laws, then how can they ever hope that its peoples will?
as we have seen from the posts here how easy it is for tempers to rise and flare, human nature in itself is very volatile.. so we have to try and ease things whenever we can. im trying to figure out if he was executed on friday now as my mum seems to think he was. as to advoid the holy day.
so not to sure.

He was executed at 0600 Baghdad time (0300 GMT) today.

Saturday in Iraq, Friday in America.

[MadPict]

Conscience,
I am entitled to post as a member of these forums. If my posts seem sarcastic or acerbic that is because that is how I might feel about a post I reply to. It has nothing to do with the word Moderator below my name. If I post a humourous reply it is because I find someones post amusing and I wish to add to the humour. Otherwise I would sit in the corner like stupid person, perhaps wearing a pointy hat with a "D" on it and I might as well never ever post any more. But as I am not restricted in my contributions to the forum I will continue to reply to posts I find either interesting, erroneous or deserving of my obtuseness.



No fred - I perceive any "insurgent" currently fighting the elected Iraq government, Iraqi security forces, New Iraq Army, Coalition forces or killing and maiming 1000's of innocent Iraq citizens in an attempt to drive an already desperately fractured and terrible unstable country even further into a state of anarchy as "murdering scum". No doubt some will be followers of the Islamic faith, just as others are there for the kicks.

You said "In the Muslem world it is a time for mercy and forgiveness" - I merely questioned the extent of that mercy and forgiveness when I see the bodies of people buying food or going to a mosque or trying to find work or just walking down the road splattered over the dust of Bagdad or Basra by the hands of other Muslims.

From the beloved BBC -

The insurgency is mainly Sunni, but draws its membership from diverse backgrounds.

Fighters range from former figures in Saddam Hussein's Baath party to Sunni nationalists fearing Shia domination and foreign Islamist fighters who see Iraq as an arena for a global struggle against the West.

Now, last time I looked these all follow the faith of Islam and are therefore Muslim. Whether they are practicing or not makes no difference. In the world of Islam you are born a Muslim...

So please tell me where I have erred?

BBC Guide to Armed groups in Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4268904.stm#nationalists)

[Conscience]

Conscience,
I am entitled to post as a member of these forums. If my posts seem sarcastic or acerbic that is because that is how I might feel about a post I reply to. It has nothing to do with the word Moderator below my name. If I post a humourous reply it is because I find someones post amusing and I wish to add to the humour. Otherwise I would sit in the corner like stupid person, perhaps wearing a pointy hat with a "D" on it and I might as well never ever post any more. But as I am not restricted in my contributions to the forum I will continue to reply to posts I find either interesting, erroneous or deserving of my obtuseness.

So it is ok for all the members of this website to be rude and sarcastic, not just moderators?

[MadPict]

I never said rude. You said rude. Rude is rude.
Sarcasm can be viewed as a form of wit. If you dislike sarcasm then maybe the wide world is not for you? Sarcasm is everywhere.

If, on the other hand, I have been rude to you then I apologise. I enjoy a debate as much as the next person and while I won't take rubbish being posted lying down, I hopefully draw the line at calling you an ingrate or a fool (this just an example BTW).
But then, like you have said, maybe what I have typed didn't seem that rude to me, but if it ruffles your feathers then perhaps I'll follow your 'code' - how does it go? "Actually it is how I meant them that is more important, seeing as I wrote them..."

Now I have a fry-up to rustle up so I'll cease this badinage and go get frying.....

Toodle Pip....

[Conscience]

I never said rude. You said rude. Rude is rude.
Sarcasm can be viewed as a form of wit. If you dislike sarcasm then maybe the wide world is not for you? Sarcasm is everywhere.

If, on the other hand, I have been rude to you then I apologise. I enjoy a debate as much as the next person and while I won't take rubbish being posted lying down, I hopefully draw the line at calling you an ingrate or a fool (this just an example BTW).
But then, like you have said, maybe what I have typed didn't seem that rude to me, but if it ruffles your feathers then perhaps I'll follow your 'code' - how does it go? "Actually it is how I meant them that is more important, seeing as I wrote them..."

Now I have a fry-up to rustle up so I'll cease this badinage and go get frying.....

Toodle Pip....


I'm just playing by YOUR rules. I perceive you to be rude and sarcastic, therefore you must be.

[badger]

Oh for goodness sake listen to yourselves. How on earth did what should have been a thoughtful thread degenerate into this childish slanging match. This is a serious subject and I can't believe so many apparently intelligent people have nothing better to do than chuck insults around, both on and off the board. "You said this", "No I didn't", "Yes you did" on and on. Is it really not possible to disagree without all this nonsense?

[fred]

So please tell me where I have erred?


I was looking through some recently declassified doccuments last night, in them some Christians were calculating the effects sanctions would have on the Iraqi water supply and how many children would die when Iraq could no longer obtain the chlorine and other chemicals needed for their water treatment plants. Their only concern seemed to be the effect the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children would have on American public relations. They seem like a very callous evil bunch to me these Christians.

Did you know that in a recent poll in Iraq 90% thought Iraq was a better place under Saddam Hussein, before their country was invaded and occupied by Christians.

What do you think will be the outcome of the trial of those Christians who massacred 24 Iraqi civillians in Haditha last year? One of the Christians who raped a 14 year old Iraqi girl got 90 years but the Christians who committed the abuses at Abu Ghraib got off very lightly I thought.

Starting to see where you erred yet?

[fred]

Oh for goodness sake listen to yourselves. How on earth did what should have been a thoughtful thread degenerate into this childish slanging match. This is a serious subject and I can't believe so many apparently intelligent people have nothing better to do than chuck insults around, both on and off the board. "You said this", "No I didn't", "Yes you did" on and on. Is it really not possible to disagree without all this nonsense?

It's these Christians, in the Christian world Christmas isn't a time of peace and goodwill.

[hotrod4]

Grow up children.
The purpose of the forum is to post your opinion on a certain topic.
If the you wnat to slag each other off then go elsewhere!
I logged on to red posts on Mr Hussain but found a slanging match between members including a moderator!!!.

Surely after all that has happened on the Org recently a moderator would not get involved in ide tittle tattle??.
Anyway to the point in hand i am gald the despot has been executed but do fear that a revenge attack is imminent as he still had his fanatic insurgents.

I do sincerely hope that the law abiding iraqi's are safe from any attacks by the scum but feel that this will not be the case as they seem to have access to explosives, intelligence manpower etc on a daily basis.

the world will be a better place without Saddam but feel we have not heard the end of the matter "inch allah!"

After all as saddam would say busmillahi allahu akhbar

[badger]

I was looking through some recently declassified doccuments last night, in them some Christians were calculating the effects sanctions would have on the Iraqi water supply and how many children would die when Iraq could no longer obtain the chlorine and other chemicals needed for their water treatment plants. Their only concern seemed to be the effect the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children would have on American public relations. They seem like a very callous evil bunch to me these Christians.

Did you know that in a recent poll in Iraq 90% thought Iraq was a better place under Saddam Hussein, before their country was invaded and occupied by Christians.

What do you think will be the outcome of the trial of those Christians who massacred 24 Iraqi civillians in Haditha last year? One of the Christians who raped a 14 year old Iraqi girl got 90 years but the Christians who committed the abuses at Abu Ghraib got off very lightly I thought.

Starting to see where you erred yet?

The "Christians" you refer to are no more sincere followers of Christ than the "Muslims" who commit atrocities are genuine followers of Mohammed, in fact I imagine many of them don't even call themselves Christians, unlike their leaders - Bush and Blair - who do and are a disgrace to the name. None of this has anything to do with true faith and everything to do with people seeking power and using religion as a weapon.

[MadPict]

hotrod4 for what it is worth I think the gates of hell have been opened and many more will die in the conflagration that is to come following the execution of this evil man.

Now, regarding my other posts - I defended the soldiers labelled as mercenaries by certain persons. I defend the right to do so. I am not a Moderator as I type this I am a member of these forums. If I see something later that requires my attention as a Mod I'll deal with it, but you'll probably never realise it.

fred,
Well if we wish to go down the religious route by all means - I believe firmly that this world would be a far better place without religion and all of its enshrined hatred of other beliefs. No argument from me there. The Christian faith has been responsible for outrages in the past as well.
And the latest bombing in Europe was caused by the Basques. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6219431.stm)

So I accept that not every Muslim in Iraq is an insurgent - but a oft used phrase at the present is "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims" Perhaps we can replace "terrorist" with the word "insurgent"?

[fred]

The "Christians" you refer to are no more sincere followers of Christ than the "Muslims" who commit atrocities are genuine followers of Mohammed, in fact I imagine many of them don't even call themselves Christians, unlike their leaders - Bush and Blair - who do and are a disgrace to the name. None of this has anything to do with true faith and everything to do with people seeking power and using religion as a weapon.

So how come whenever a bomb goes off in Iraq it's always a Muslem that did it but when an Iraqi civillian is murdered by the occupying forces it's never a Christian that did it?

Madpict seems to think that the Iraqi insurgents ARE the Muslem world.

[MadPict]

You twisting others words again fred.

You're good at that..

BTW - I think the correct way to spell it is M-U-S-L-I-M


Until the late 1980s, the term Moslem was commonly used. Muslims do not recommend this spelling because it is often pronounced "mawzlem" /mɒzlɛm/ which sounds somewhat similar to an Arabic word for "oppressed" (Za'lem in Arabic). The word is pronounced /muslem/ in Arabic, but often /mʊślɪm/ in English. The word is now most commonly written "Muslim".

[fred]

You twisting others words again fred.

You're good at that..

BTW - I think the correct way to spell it is M-U-S-L-I-M

Oh I'm not twisting anything.

BTW you might think that a spelling flame makes you look superior but it just makes you look like a prat.

[oldmarine]

What a pity he couldn't have had a fair trial with an indipendent judge in a neutral country first.

But then there would have been no way of preventing him revealing who his accomplices were.

It's victors' justice nothing more, just reinforces what the radical Muslems have been saying about the West. A boost to Al Qaeda recruiting at a time when America is deciding whether to bring in the draft or hire foreign mercenaries.


Fred: why do you state it's a pity that he did not have a fair trial. Do yo believe he was not guilty of the charges that cause his execution?

[MadPict]

Forgive me for trying to correct your repeated error - or perhaps you prefer to use the arabic word which translates to "oppressed"? Seems to fit in witht he general gist of your previous posts.

Hmm, prat? Resort to insults old chap if it really makes you feel better, I can just let that one roll off my thick old hide onto the floor along with all the others. I'll throw it in the bin later when I tidy up.

[oldmarine]

You percieve all Muslems as "murdering insurgent scum" as you call them?


Fred: Are you a Muslem? You appear to reflect that you are in your postings. I know that Islam (Muslems) have dominated Spain and France and now are becoming strong in Great Britain as they have been in the USA. I believe that they failed in Europe during the 1400 - 1500's and are trying again in this century.

[fred]

Fred: why do you state it's a pity that he did not have a fair trial. Do yo believe he was not guilty of the charges that cause his execution?

I state it's a pity that he did not get a fair trial because he did not get a fair trial, innocent or guilty makes no difference, everyone is entitled to a fair trial.

The first judge at his trial resigned complaining of government interference and two of his defence lawyers were assasinated, not by any stretch of the imagination can that be described as a fair trial.

He should have been tried at the International Court of Justice with impartial judges where defence lawyers and witnesses could not be intimidated or shot. Preferably with Bush on one side of him in the dock and Blair on the other.

[fred]

Fred: Are you a Muslem? You appear to reflect that you are in your postings. I know that Islam (Muslems) have dominated Spain and France and now are becoming strong in Great Britain as they have been in the USA. I believe that they failed in Europe during the 1400 - 1500's and are trying again in this century.

What difference does it make what I am? Truth is truth in any language and hot air is just hot air.

How many Christian countries have been forcibly invaded by Muslem countries in the last two hundred years? How many Muslem countries invaded and occupied by Christian countries?

[Conscience]

You twisting others words again fred.

You're good at that..

Pot, Kettle etc. I see nothing has changed while I was down the pub. You are still bullying and belittling those with different opinions to yourself. Some moderator. [disgust]

[JAWS]

Fred: Are you a Muslem? You appear to reflect that you are in your postings. I know that Islam (Muslems) have dominated Spain and France and now are becoming strong in Great Britain as they have been in the USA. I believe that they failed in Europe during the 1400 - 1500's and are trying again in this century.Don't be silly oldmarnie. Fred will support any Religious or Political belief providing it hates the Capitalist West. And if it happens to scream "Death to America and Britain" he would follow it to hell and back.

The nearest thing to a "religious" belief that Fred has is International Communism (sorry, Socialism, it sounds much less threatening) and his only mantra is, "Forward Brothers the Revolution".

Just check the sites he points people towards. Then ignore the bits he wants you to read, check the "links" the sites wish to lead you to, check the home details or the sites and then "Google" some of the organisations and people you find in them.
Don't get too bored when what you check gets too repetitive.

[JAWS]

Pot, Kettle etc. I see nothing has changed while I was down the pub. You are still bullying and belittling those with different opinions to yourself. Some moderator. [disgust]Now where have I heard that before?

[Conscience]

And we live in a Capitalist Utopia do we?

Hows the walk Jaws? Getting any more comfortable yet? :lol:

[ywindythesecond]

Been away for a while. This is powerful stuff!

I grew up in Glasgow in the fifties and sixties, and todays "Muslims and Christians" conflicts are no more related to religion than "Rangers and Celtic" conflicts were then.

The difference is that today the media is fuelling the fire, and it is very persuasive.

It is now time to sit back and think.

ywindythesecond

[fred]

Just check the sites he points people towards. Then ignore the bits he wants you to read, check the "links" the sites wish to lead you to, check the home details or the sites and then "Google" some of the organisations and people you find in them.
Don't get too bored when what you check gets too repetitive.

And if you read my posts backwards they say "Satan is King".

[scorrie]

And if you read my posts backwards they say "Satan is King".

Where did I go wrong fred? I read your posts backwards and it came out as "Santa is King"

[fred]

Surely after all that has happened on the Org recently a moderator would not get involved in ide tittle tattle??.


There's another one at it now, no reference to the subject or argument at all just an ad homine attack on someone who doesn't share his islamophobic bigotry.

Looks to me like the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

[JAWS]

And if you read my posts backwards they say "Satan is King".I've never tried reading them backwards, thanks for the tip. Perhaps they make more sense when you read them that way. Does it help if you stand things on their head as well?

Which Satan are we talking about this time? The Religious one or the Secular one?
Never mind, it doesn't matter which it is because, as usual, it wouldn't bear any relevance to anything resembling reality.

Shalom. and have a Happy Christian New Year, Fred! I'll be holding mine at a more appropriate time along with the rest of those like me,

[JAWS]

And we live in a Capitalist Utopia do we?

Hows the walk Jaws? Getting any more comfortable yet? :lol:
Both my Utopia and my walk are fine. Neither of them have ever caused me any problem of wandering into the mire on the left.
It's not the walk you have to worry about, it's the short drop at the end of it which is the part worth waiting for.

[Kolskegg]

The word mercenaries on this post has been contentious. It might simplify matters to use the term "hired guns".

[MadPict]

Why not instead refer to them as men and women selflessly putting their lives in danger for the service of their Queen and Country. Funnily enough they pledge alliegance to the Monarch first. Not her Prime Minister or Government.

Why insult them by calling them hired guns or mercenaries or maybe baby killers will be the next outrageous and disgraceful term some here will attach to their service abroad....

And lest we forget, these hired guns or what ever insulting term you wish to give them, have names and faces and families...

Here is a list of those "mercenaries" killed in Iraq....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3847051.stm

And the "hired guns" in Afghanistan....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5121552.stm

[fred]

The word mercenaries on this post has been contentious. It might simplify matters to use the term "hired guns".

They'd just find some other excuse to stifle debate of the real issues. What else can you do when your beliefs are based on prejudice.

Apart from restricting your posting to a barrage of libelous lies in an attempt to discredit those trying to debate the facts that is.

[scotsboy]

What a pity he couldn't have had a fair trial with an indipendent judge in a neutral country first.

But then there would have been no way of preventing him revealing who his accomplices were.

It's victors' justice nothing more, just reinforces what the radical Muslems have been saying about the West. A boost to Al Qaeda recruiting at a time when America is deciding whether to bring in the draft or hire foreign mercenaries.

I have to agree with Fred on this occasion. The trial was a sham. My conundrum over the festive season with regard to this is……do the ends justify the means…and in my opinion the answer is no. Everyone knew what the outcome would be, it would have been better if he had been found dead, or was killed during capture.

One of the mainstays of this regime change action (as we all now know that the WMD and links to terrorism nonsense, are and were just that, nonsense) is the democratizing of Iraq, well in many of our civilized (sic) societies the legal system is based upon the fact that you have the right not to be charged for an offence that was not an offence at the time it occurred. Now however atrocious the acts that Sadam carried out, Iraq was not the place for him to be tried.

[Kolskegg]

Why not instead refer to them as men and women selflessly putting their lives in danger for the service of their Queen and Country. Funnily enough they pledge alliegance to the Monarch first. Not her Prime Minister or Government.

I was referring to mercenaries as hired guns, not soldiers fighting for the coalition nations.

[JAWS]

Wasn't that exactly the same argument that was used about Nuremberg.
The German People didn't have a single representative amongst either the Judges or the Prosecution.
The Judges and the Prosecution were all Hand-picked for their anti-Nazi Credentials.
Apart from the defendants, the only Germans I can discover who were allowed anywhere near the trials were the "Witnesses for the Prosecution".
I don't think there was even one German in any of the defence teams who were all hand-picked by the Victors.

Does that mean that Nuremberg was a disgrace and none of the Germans there received a fair trial. One was hanged simply because he was a Journalist.
One was hanged for "Treason" in this country even though, because of his nationality, it was an offence he could not possibly have committed.

Nothing more than a farce? Would anybody like to suggest that "Justice" was not done? Was this also nothing more than "Victor's Justice"?

And before anybody bother's, no I do not wear jack-boots, have a problem getting my right elbow to bend when I lift my right arm, do the goose-step or suffer bouts of screaming, "Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Furher! Zeig Heil!"
Nor have I any fear of visiting Austria because of any views I hold!

But, none the less, there will be those who will dream on with their "wishful thinking" of hoping to convince people that I have a "Secret Shrine" to Hitler hidden in a Bunker somewhere.
I will, however, confess that the Marx Brothers are not on the top of my reading list!

[fred]

Why not instead refer to them as men and women selflessly putting their lives in danger for the service of their Queen and Country. Funnily enough they pledge alliegance to the Monarch first. Not her Prime Minister or Government.


So tell me how our country has benefitted from this war Madpict. It has cost the taxpayers of Britain and America a fortune, over 3,000 mothers have lost their sons, it has increased our chances of terrorist attack exponentially and robbed us of our civil liberties. The people of Britain and America arn't doing too well at all but that's nothing compared to the people of Iraq, they have come off a lot worse out of it.

There are some corporations doing very nicely out of it though. Corporations in the arms industry, corporations in the oil industry, corporations in the supply and construction industry. There are some corporations doing very nicely indeed out of this war, corporations with very close ties to the people who started the war. There are a few CEOs expecting seven figure bonuses this year and a few politicians expecting seven figure pensions.

Soldiers fight in the name of Queen and country mercenaries fight in the name of Mammon, which one is this?

[Conscience]

Why not instead refer to them as men and women selflessly putting their lives in danger for the service of their Queen and Country.


Because in Afghanistan and Iraq they are not putting their lives in danger for Queen and Country. Because of Tony Blair, they are serving president Bush and HIS country.

[scotsboy]

Wasn't that exactly the same argument that was used about Nuremberg.
The German People didn't have a single representative amongst either the Judges or the Prosecution.
The Judges and the Prosecution were all Hand-picked for their anti-Nazi Credentials.
Apart from the defendants, the only Germans I can discover who were allowed anywhere near the trials were the "Witnesses for the Prosecution".
I don't think there was even one German in any of the defence teams who were all hand-picked by the Victors.

Does that mean that Nuremberg was a disgrace and none of the Germans there received a fair trial. One was hanged simply because he was a Journalist.
One was hanged for "Treason" in this country even though, because of his nationality, it was an offence he could not possibly have committed.

Nothing more than a farce? Would anybody like to suggest that "Justice" was not done? Was this also nothing more than "Victor's Justice"?

And before anybody bother's, no I do not wear jack-boots, have a problem getting my right elbow to bend when I lift my right arm, do the goose-step or suffer bouts of screaming, "Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Furher! Zeig Heil!"
Nor have I any fear of visiting Austria because of any views I hold!

But, none the less, there will be those who will dream on with their "wishful thinking" of hoping to convince people that I have a "Secret Shrine" to Hitler hidden in a Bunker somewhere.
I will, however, confess that the Marx Brothers are not on the top of my reading list!
I don't know Jaws, I have not studied nor do I know anything about the Nuremberg trialls........but from what you have written it seems very much like a farce.

[fred]

I don't know Jaws, I have not studied nor do I know anything about the Nuremberg trialls........but from what you have written it seems very much like a farce.

Well yes, we were guilty of more than an element of Victors' Justice then as welll, it was a bit of a farce.

Nothing like the farce of the trial of Saddam Hussein though, or for that matter the trial of Pinochet.

If those behind the war in Iraq are ever charged with launching wars of aggression and crimes against peace as the Germans at the Nuremberg trials were, in WWII it was the other side launching unprovoked attacks on defenceless countries, I most sincerely hope they will be tried in a neutral country by neutral judges.

At least then they won't be prosecuted in public then pardoned in secret like those behind the Iran Contra scandal were.

[MadPict]

Kolskegg,

I was referring to mercenaries as hired guns, not soldiers fighting for the coalition nations.
Sorry, misread what you meant.


Mr Fred,
I don't think I have at any point stated that I supported the war in Iraq. At the time I felt it was a big mistake. If we had finished the job we started in 1990 and pushed to Baghdad when we at least had a reason (liberation of Kuwait) then we wouldn't be arguing the toss now. But then you might have views contrary to me over that little military action? So maybe we would still be arguing the toss?....

I have never stated that invading Iraq or Afghanistan has reduced our risk of a major terrorist attack.
7/7 was a mere skirmish. A foretaste of bigger things? I fully believe that there will be something a lot worse to come.
But at the same time the oppression imposed on the Afghan people by the Taliban was a terrible thing. And yes I am aware of who helped fund/arm them a few years ago. We should have sorted out that problem first.

I am also aware that any action in that country is going to be long and bloody. Look at the failure of the USSR to break the Afghan spirit. 14,500 dead if I recall. I have seen the bodies of young Russian lads burning on the road next to their destroyed BTR-80. They look just like the young men from the UK lying dead next to their unarmoured Landrovers....

And strangely enough, the Soviets went into that conflict poorly equipped. Why does the poor squaddie never get the gear they deserve?

The arms industry has always been the only winner in a war. From the first days of man, the guy in his cave making better clubs that the other guy in another cave, down the ages of gunpowder and now to smart weapons (oh god, lets not open the DU chest).
And I was as full of cynicism when the news that Halliburton had been handed the contract to clear up and then run the oil infrastructure in Iraq.

All this does not excuse the remarks made about those in service of their country (however shaky the reason, they are still out there living in crap conditions with crap equipment fighting an enemy who prefers to look like a civilian and thereby making the UK forces job that much harder) - or will you spit at them and verbally abuse them as they walk through the streets back home, as some did to US troops when they returned home from another war far, far away?

Actually while I think about it perhaps there would be a few conscientious objectors amongst you all if conscription/draft/National Service were reintroduced.

[JAWS]

The attitude towards the trials at Nuremberg and the attitude towards the Defendants getting a "Fair Trial" is nicely summed up by the following.

After one of the defendants sought to instruct Sir Andrew Clark, KC, a leading Chancery barrister, the Bar Council issued a statement in October 1945 that “it is undesirable that a member of the English Bar should appear for the defence”.

The "War Crimes" the defendants were charged with had to be "Created" or "Invented" whichever you prefer because they simply did not exist.
Once the "Creative" Legal process had been brought into being it had, therefore, to be in effect, "Backdated" as all the actions had taken place before the "Charges" had been invented.

The Russians insisted that the charges of "Making Aggressive War" should only apply to the Axis (Germany) Powers and no others otherwise they would have been guilty of the same "Offences" by their Invasion of Poland which was with the prior agreement they had with Hitler to divide that Country and also their unprovoked attack on the tiny Country of Finland.

The whole thing was a contrived and ridiculous case of "fixing the game" before the whole thing started. Laws had to be artificially manufactured to suit the aims of those involved.
The people to be "Tried" for the offences were chosen out of pure expediency to suit the desired effect.

Julius Streicher, who was admittedly a avid Racist and was as totally obnoxious a person as you are ever likely to meet, was included amongst the accused simply for writing extremely disgusting racist propaganda in the 1930s.
He took no part in any of the Holocaust and probably was no more aware of what was happening than any other German as by that period he had become an outcast amongst the Nazis in 1940.
Why was he included? Well, all the main people involved had either committed suicide or where nowhere to be found. Somebody was needed to fill the gap to publicly "take the blame" for the Holocaust which had been left unfulfilled by those who were absent so it was decided that he would do nicely thank you very much. Well somebody had to hang for it, hadn't they, and he was the most unlovable person available?

Personally, I have no sympathy with any of them, but such were the actions which led to much of what we now call "International Crimes".

Some, in fact most, of the information comes from
http://assets.cambridge.org/052182/9917/sample/0521829917ws.pdf

I have no doubt others will point to other sources which will give different viewpoints but most sources will give very much the same general background even if many of the details differ in interpretation.

The main difference between those at Nuremberg and certain other Leaders mentioned in this Thread is the Leaders of those on trial at Nuremberg were headed by the Democratically Elected Leaders chosen in Free Elections by the people and had not murdered their way to power.

Such is the basis on which our wonderful “International Law” has it’s foundations.
It’s basic principle lies on the firm foundations that it can be twisted to be interpreted in any way that any particular group wishes to interpret it.

[EDDIE]

If anyone is interested u can watch the full hanging of saddam tooken from a mobile phone i dont whow long this will be on the internet for.

http://dreadpundit.blogspot.com/

I also seen the video in the google video

[Jeemag_USA]

If anyone is interested u can watch the full hanging of saddam tooken from a mobile phone i dont whow long this will be on the internet for.

http://dreadpundit.blogspot.com/

I also seen the video in the google video

Phwoo that sent a shiver up my back I can tell you.

[tommy1979]

If anyone is interested u can watch the full hanging of saddam tooken from a mobile phone i dont whow long this will be on the internet for.

http://dreadpundit.blogspot.com/

I also seen the video in the google video

allah akbar :roll:

[fred]

Kolskegg,
All this does not excuse the remarks made about those in service of their country (however shaky the reason, they are still out there living in crap conditions with crap equipment fighting an enemy who prefers to look like a civilian and thereby making the UK forces job that much harder) - or will you spit at them and verbally abuse them as they walk through the streets back home, as some did to US troops when they returned home from another war far, far away?


I don't think the remarks were made about those in service personally and do not think that the majority of our troops would take it personally, I would hope they were made of better stuff than that. I think, as Conscience has said, that he was refering to our troops fighting Corporate America's war, that our entire military had been sold out by our politicians. I don't think we can hold individual servicemen accountable for that and I don't think Conscience ever intended to imply that we could.

[Conscience]

Actually while I think about it perhaps there would be a few conscientious objectors amongst you all if conscription/draft/National Service were reintroduced.

You would be wrong. I would die defending my family, my home and my country* (in that order), but I would NOT fight for someone else's country because a politician thinks it would be good for business.

*By defending my country I mean exactly that. If my country was in danger of hostile invasion I would defend it. Chasing ghosts as an excuse for war in Afghan mountains, on the whim of a liar like Tony Blair I would NOT do.

[JAWS]

Didn't somebody once say on these Forums that one of theTerrorist Organizations who had been operating in Northern Ireland were now operating in Iraq?
I can't for the life of me think who it was who made that suggestion. Can anybody help me because my memory seems to be a little hazy on that point!

[MadPict]

I don't think the remarks were made about those in service personally and do not think that the majority of our troops would take it personally, I would hope they were made of better stuff than that.


Maybe so, but when you 1000's of miles from home and your loved ones, living under arduous and dangerous conditions, not knowing if your next patrol out may be your last, perhaps logging onto the internet for news from home or just a bit of distraction, and you read such negative commentary about what you're doing, can hurt a hardened squaddie more than you might think. They are under a great deal of stress as it is...



I think, as Conscience has said, that he was refering to our troops fighting Corporate America's war, that our entire military had been sold out by our politicians. I don't think we can hold individual servicemen accountable for that and I don't think Conscience ever intended to imply that we could.

But all down the ages our politicians have "sold out" our troops. It just fits in that they are standing side by side with your arch nemesis, the USA.
And I hate to hark on about what Conscience wrote but it is not how I or many others read it.


You would be wrong. I would die defending my family, my home and my country...

Lest you think I was aiming a low ball at you I wasn't. It was a general observation reinforced by discussions with folk I know who have told me their views on the draft.

But, as you have said you'd fight for your country - if that fight needed you to go overseas to finish the job would you say no, I only fight here in the UK?
Would you have landed on the beaches on D-Day and fought your way across Europe to the walls of Berlin?
At what point would you say I have done enough?

[Conscience]

if that fight needed you to go overseas to finish the job would you say no, I only fight here in the UK?


Yes I would. A fanatic in a cave in Afghanistan is no threat this country. Neither was Saddam's Iraq.

[Conscience]

And I hate to hark on about what Conscience wrote but it is not how I or many others read it.


That is your problem, not mine. And since when has three constituted 'many'?

[MadPict]

Well there are those who might not wish to add to the spirited nature of this discussion. They read and agree but prefer to stay silent. Just as your side of the debate will have it's silent supporters. Is that fair enough?

Actually in a way you would be a conscientious objector. On moral grounds perhaps? "A conscientious objector (CO) is an individual following the religious, moral or ethical dictates of his or her conscience that are incompatible with being a combatant in military service, or being part of the armed forces as a combatant organization."

You consider fighting abroad immoral? Unethical perhaps? And I have no issue with CO - many did brave work as stretcher bearers and other forms of service so I am not intending it to be a term of dishonour. I am now just curious.

[Conscience]

Not immoral, pointless. You want to go die for a barrel of oil, please, feel free.

[Jeemag_USA]

Going back to the video of Saddam's hanging and now having read what the onlookers and so on were shouting. I think is proof positive to anyone who thinks they can just wander in and bring democracy to a nation are sadly deluded. Iraq in essence has agreed to have a democratic parliament of their own and perhaps try and evolve their nation into one with freedom and a righteous vote. If they really wanted to be serious about having a democratic and responsible government, I am shocked (well not really) they would allow an execution to be carried out with such indignity and disgrace. For people to be allowed to shout out names of Shi-ite enemies and phrases on this occasion is just ridiculous (and now makes the claims that they were also dancing around the body even more harmful). In a country of mixed Sunni and Shiite muslims this is suicidal on the governments behalf, when they released the footage they dubbed the sound only for someone else to leak it out with sound, its crazy, and now they try to explain its not an act of shiite revenge like all the Sunni's are going to believe this. I can understand the balaclavas because the people carrying out the execution would fear reprisals. But when you look at the video it just looks like a shiite terrorist organisation executing a Sunni dictator? Bizarre, and just another reason why they are now going to be fighting for decades??? :roll:

Did anyone read Saddam's last public letter that has been published, the stuff he wrote that he was not allowed to say in court?

[fred]

But all down the ages our politicians have "sold out" our troops. It just fits in that they are standing side by side with your arch nemesis, the USA.
And I hate to hark on about what Conscience wrote but it is not how I or many others read it.


I would have thought that someone with a thick old hide would have just let it roll off.

I know that life can be hell for soldiers fighting in Iraq as it is for any soldier in any war but I can't believe our troops are looking for sympathy or for their plight to be used as a weapon against those who question the legality and morality of the war in Iraq.

[MadPict]

Conscience,
No need - I got a deal with me local chippy - cheap fuel ;)

Jeemag
My thoughts also - I think 2007 is going to be "the mother of all years" for the people of Iraq.
Fighting between the Shia and Sunni will become worse now. The Sunnis will view the trial and execution of Saddam as a Shiite revenge trip.

fred,
Who knows what you really believe....

[fred]

Did anyone read Saddam's last public letter that has been published, the stuff he wrote that he was not allowed to say in court?

Yes, I read it when it first came out, it was on one of the websites I frequent.

It's at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14079.htm if anyone wants to read it.

[fred]

fred,
Who knows what you really believe....

It has just been announced Spec. Dustin R. Donica was the 3,000th American soldier to die in Iraq.

People talk about the last soldier to die in a war when the outcome is already settled and the death serves no purpose. I believe in this war first, last or 3,000th it's all the same, each one is as needless and futile as the others.

[lin]

I still think he got off with the crimes. He really got it easy The death penalty is an easy way out !!!!!

[JAWS]

I believe in this war first, last or 3,000th it's all the same, each one is as needless and futile as the others. Perhaps you should be telling that to the people who are killing them.

[Metalattakk]

Yes, I read it when it first came out, it was on one of the websites I frequent.

It's at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14079.htm if anyone wants to read it.

Yeah, but that website is nothing more than a conduit for anti-US and pro-Saddam propaganda.

I'm all for freedom of information but for goodness' sake, don't let yourself be drawn down the ludicrous path of the internet conspracist.

[JAWS]

Metalattakk, just check my Post 148

Just check the sites he points people towards. Then ignore the bits he wants you to read, check the "links" the sites wish to lead you to, check the home details or the sites and then "Google" some of the organisations and people you find in them.
Don't get too bored when what you check gets too repetitive.

Then check Fred’s response in :Post 152

And if you read my posts backwards they say "Satan is King".

Perhaps you should have followed Fred’s advice and read the whole of that site backwards. It also helps if you have your head buried deep in the sand whilst you are doing it! [lol]

[scotsboy]

Interesting take on events from today's Arab News:

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=90555&d=1&m=1&y=2007

[Conscience]

Jaws, please tell us who or what you consider a reliable news source. It seems you dismiss any news agency which reports contradictory evidence to your own extremely narrow views. You have dismissed the BBC, ABC, CNN, The New York Times, The Guardian... so please, who DO you consider reliable?

[fred]

Yeah, but that website is nothing more than a conduit for anti-US and pro-Saddam propaganda.

I'm all for freedom of information but for goodness' sake, don't let yourself be drawn down the ludicrous path of the internet conspracist.

And Fox News is what?

I'll stick with the sources which history has proved reliable, you and JAWS can stay in your fantasy world and believe everything Bush tells you if you want.

You want to see a real conspiracy theorist at work, take a look at this. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html)
Then take a look at Saddam Husseins letter and see which has more truth in it.

Saddam may have been a brutal ruthless murderer but at least he was an honest brutal ruthless murderer.

I was trying to warn people on forums about Global Warming last century, I watched Americans I had debated with and respected for years go insane in 2001, I was telling people on formums that Saddam was no threat to anyone before the invasion, when I joined this forum in 2004 I was arguing with people telling me how much the people of Iraq loved us.

You and JAWS stick to Fox News, you obviously enjoy being lied to

[fred]

Interesting take on events from today's Arab News:

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=90555&d=1&m=1&y=2007

And from the British Press.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1980775,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=27

Oh and Metalattakk, as you read it you might get a feeling of deja vu.

[j4bberw0ck]

I think there's a lot to commend in >>>this article<<< (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=4MYMMLTDGXC2PQFIQMFCFFWAVCBQ YIV0?xml=/opinion/2007/01/01/do0102.xml).

[JAWS]

Jaws, please tell us who or what you consider a reliable news source. It seems you dismiss any news agency which reports contradictory evidence to your own extremely narrow views. You have dismissed the BBC, ABC, CNN, The New York Times, The Guardian... so please, who DO you consider reliable?You missed more out than you included, you really should pay more attention! :roll:

I get most of my information from such totally unbaseed sources as
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/index.html and
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/who.htm

A quick check on both those links should give people an insight into what a truly unbiassed source of information is. I suggest people shoud tqke a quick peek at them both so they can decide where they are more likely to get a view of the "Real World"!

[Metalattakk]

And Fox News is what?

I'll stick with the sources which history has proved reliable, you and JAWS can stay in your fantasy world and believe everything Bush tells you if you want.

You want to see a real conspiracy theorist at work, take a look at this. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html)
Then take a look at Saddam Husseins letter and see which has more truth in it.

Saddam may have been a brutal ruthless murderer but at least he was an honest brutal ruthless murderer.

I was trying to warn people on forums about Global Warming last century, I watched Americans I had debated with and respected for years go insane in 2001, I was telling people on formums that Saddam was no threat to anyone before the invasion, when I joined this forum in 2004 I was arguing with people telling me how much the people of Iraq loved us.

You and JAWS stick to Fox News, you obviously enjoy being lied to

Begone with your conspiracies and self-glorifying world-saving.

I will not and have not clicked on any more of your links. After looking at the first one, I could see that you're one of these people who are sucked in by the 'injustices' of the world, and are behaving like nothing more than a reactionary fanatic, looking for and finding exactly what you want to find - such is the way with conspiracists.

The fact that you are already pigeon-holing JAWS and myself as 'the same' is another classic tactic.

As I said before - ludicrous.

[bigpete]

Fred.
You seem to know an awful lot about Iraq, Iraqi politics, could you please tell me how much time you have spent in that country, actually on the ground, experiencing personal contact with the people there. You are obviously not military, so presumably you may have been there in a civilian roll? I'm not being facetious, just a straight answer; none or a some. Please tell

[JAWS]

And Fox News is what?

I'll stick with the sources which history has proved reliable, you and JAWS can stay in your fantasy world and believe everything Bush tells you if you want.

Saddam may have been a brutal ruthless murderer but at least he was an honest brutal ruthless murderer.

You and JAWS stick to Fox News, you obviously enjoy being lied to

I found this in an interesting article about Sadman Hussein,

“For years he was the power behind the ailing figure of the president, Ahmed Hassan Bakr. In 1979, he achieved his ambition of becoming head of state. The new president started as he intended to go on - putting to death dozens of his rivals.”

“But his tactic of imposing his authority by terror has gone far beyond the occasional arrest and execution of opponents. In attempts to suppress the Kurds, for example, he has systematically used chemical weapons. And in putting down a rebellion of Shi'ia in the south he has razed towns to the ground and drained marshland.”

And the source of this obviously biased and pack of lies about such a nice, honest man?

Was it Fox News which Fred has thrown in as if I were intended to take his suggestion seriously as some sort of “insult” and is an obvious attempt to indicate my “gullibility” to accept everything I am spoon fed by the “American Corporate, NeoCon, (or is it CIA?) controlled World ‘s Media? (I seem to remember somebody trying to convince me that the Neocons controlled ever news source in the whole World. I'm sure somebody will recall who that might have been)

No, it comes from one of both his and Consciences sound, reliable sources they recommend I should take notice of,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1100529.stm
That article was admittedly written in 2001, before certain minor changes occurred in the World, but the article is worth a quick glance if nothing else.

The dozens of “Rivals” this “Honest Brutal Ruthless Murderer” put to death was at a General Meeting of the Ba’ath Party. He declared there were people involved in a “Conspiracy against the Party”. (Even Stalin had the decency to put on Show Trials for such inventions)
Slowly, one by one, Sadman started naming names. Those so named were immediately removed from the Meeting, taken outside the room and immediately shot so all could hear what was happening.
Suddenly the huge mass of those present took the hint and rose up to declare Sadman Hussein their undoubted God – sorry, I mean Leader.

Just so there was a record of how nice a person he was he had the whole thing recorded on Video.
I doubt you will find that particular piece of Video on any of the sites recommended by Fred or Conscience.

I have naught to dread by people checking my “Biased” and “Unreal World” sources. They certainly won't almost invariably lead to sites containing any "Extremist Views" to support my "Unreal view of the World".

[Conscience]

Actually Fred has been quoting... the information clearing house...

[JAWS]

I think there's a lot to commend in >>>this article<<< (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=4MYMMLTDGXC2PQFIQMFCFFWAVCBQ YIV0?xml=/opinion/2007/01/01/do0102.xml).J4abberw0ck, now that I do agree with. From the bits I saw/heard on the various News, I won’t dignify it by calling then either reports or coverage, I certainly considered to be distasteful to say the least.

It’s no secret that I hold little respect for Saddam Hussein but the way the Media covered the situation reminded me of the way they discuss the ins and outs of every detail during the lead-up to some sort of sporting event or major film premier.

[JAWS]

Actually Fred has been quoting... the information clearing house...

Conscience, I take it we are talking about the same "Information Clearing House" site


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/index.html and
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/who.htm

A quick check on both those links should give people an insight into what a truly unbiased source of information is.

The site quotes, as one of it’s aims, “This website does not suggest that it contains the "truth". The truth is a combination of all information and all facts relating to a topic. It is therefore unachievable (in my opinion) for anyone to say "I know the truth." “
Also
“There is a war going on for the minds of America, those waging this war are determined to control the American people by taking possession of our minds and by controlling our sources of information.”

From that you would expect that you would find a reasonable and fair mixture of many and varied points of view.
Simply spend a few seconds scrolling down the “index.html” I have shown above to see how varied the Points of View are.
Then try and find out who the “concerned individual” "Tom", who created the site is and who decides what contents get to be included on the site and what gets very obviously excluded.

And the site links to http://www.votersforpeace.us/ which, in itself should tell you a lot.

[Conscience]

So are you saying information clearing house is reliable or not? On the one hand you say its unbiased and now you're saying it links to dubious sites?

[badger]

To return to the original subject for one moment, the process of this execution did credit to no-one - least of all the so-called new Iraqui government. They had more than enough time to plan it and those witnessing should have been carefully chosen with no mobile phones or other recording equipment, apart from the official camera, admitted. I disagree totally with the death penalty but if it had to be carried out it should at least have been done with dignity and restraint. I have not seen the unofficial video, nor do I propose to, and cannot imagine why anyone would want to look at it. In this country we are supposed to have progressed beyond treating executions as a public spectacle.

[Jeemag_USA]

To return to the original subject for one moment, the process of this execution did credit to no-one - least of all the so-called new Iraqui government. They had more than enough time to plan it and those witnessing should have been carefully chosen with no mobile phones or other recording equipment, apart from the official camera, admitted. I disagree totally with the death penalty but if it had to be carried out it should at least have been done with dignity and restraint. I have not seen the unofficial video, nor do I propose to, and cannot imagine why anyone would want to look at it. In this country we are supposed to have progressed beyond treating executions as a public spectacle.

Agreed, there was nothing about this execution that looked in any way official. It was a chance for the new government to show they can act responsibly. If they had to wear hoods they could at least have used the newly formed Iraqui Police and had them in uniform instead of guys with t-shirts and leather jackets on and so on. The video is just another spool of proof that barbarism is the norm for those people in power in Iraq. Wether there are foreign troops in the country or not, even after they go, Iraq will remain a hot bed of sectarian killing, it is without this video, but this video will make it worse now. Its also chilling proof that the Allied Invasion of Iraq has been a complete waste of time and money.

[Conscience]

While the actions of some of those present at the execution was undoubtedly undignified, I am not surprised it happened. These people lived through decades of brutality at the hands of Saddam's regime.
It is no different to those who gather outside prisons in the US to celebrate executions, or those who witness executions cheering.

[fred]

I will not and have not clicked on any more of your links. After looking at the first one, I could see that you're one of these people who are sucked in by the 'injustices' of the world, and are behaving like nothing more than a reactionary fanatic, looking for and finding exactly what you want to find - such is the way with conspiracists.


Keep your head up your backside if you want, just don't pretend to be informed.

[Metalattakk]

So your truth is the only truth? [lol]

Who do you sound like now??

[JAWS]

So are you saying information clearing house is reliable or not? On the one hand you say its unbiased and now you're saying it links to dubious sites?Are you saying that you don't understand what my post says?

[fred]

So are you saying information clearing house is reliable or not? On the one hand you say its unbiased and now you're saying it links to dubious sites?

You're wasting your time Conscience, he rarely has a clue what he's arguing about himself.

He'll do anything he can to discredit someone he doesn't agree with or their sources of information, what he never does is come up with a valid counter argument.

Take a look through this thread, see the ones who are desperately trying to focus the subject on the messenger not the message and you can safely ignore them.

[Conscience]

I ask because you are contradicting yourself. On the one hand you say:




I get most of my information from such totally unbaseed sources as
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/index.html and
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/who.htm

A quick check on both those links should give people an insight into what a truly unbiassed source of information is. I suggest people shoud tqke a quick peek at them both so they can decide where they are more likely to get a view of the "Real World"!

And then you say:



Then try and find out who the “concerned individual” "Tom", who created the site is and who decides what contents get to be included on the site and what gets very obviously excluded.

And the site links to http://www.votersforpeace.us/ which, in itself should tell you a lot.

So either you think it is a reliable source of information, or you think it is the site of a lone conspiracy theorist. Which is it?

[MadPict]

Yes, I read it when it first came out, it was on one of the websites I frequent.

It's at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14079.htm if anyone wants to read it.

Conscience,
I think Jaws might have been referring to fred's post above when he was mentioning "information clearing house"?

[Conscience]

He may have been, but they are one and the same site. Is Jaws saying that if he uses ICH for his information it is ok, but if Fred does then its a conspiracy theory?

[fred]

So your truth is the only truth? [lol]

Who do you sound like now??

Looked to me like that was what you were saying.

To me truth is truth as where it comes from, I'm not selective about what I believe. I base my beliefs on the available evidence as what the source and regardless of what I would rather believe.

[bigpete]

Fred.
You seem to know an awful lot about Iraq, Iraqi politics, could you please tell me how much time you have spent in that country, actually on the ground, experiencing personal contact with the people there. You are obviously not military, so presumably you may have been there in a civilian roll? I'm not being facetious, just a straight answer; none or a some. Please tell

http://forum.caithness.org/images/misc/progress.gif

[fred]

He may have been, but they are one and the same site. Is Jaws saying that if he uses ICH for his information it is ok, but if Fred does then its a conspiracy theory?

The trial of Saddam Hussein was a show trial, you know it, I know it and JAWS knows it but he'd rather nobody said it. He wants to stick his head in the sand and pretend that our leaders arn't just the same as the man they executed.

He'll launch ad homine attacks and build strawmen to knock down and pretend to himself he's winning an argument but he knows he can't disprove the truth.

Information Clearing House is just a web site, a souce of information I don't get elsewhere. News reports from other countries, things like letters from Saddam Hussein and Downing Street Memos that for some reason don't get into the British press. Take a look today and the first article is by Robert Fisk, you'd have to go a long way to find someone with more experience in Middle Eastern politics than Robert Fisk and someone would have to be a fool or a bigot to form an opinion without reading what he has to say.

JAWS will try to convince everyone that because I read Information Clearing House that makes me a Communist Agitator or something, that's only because he doesn't have a leg to stand on arguing the facts.

[badger]

While the actions of some of those present at the execution was undoubtedly undignified, I am not surprised it happened. These people lived through decades of brutality at the hands of Saddam's regime.
It is no different to those who gather outside prisons in the US to celebrate executions, or those who witness executions cheering.

Having said that I disagree with the death penalty, I think you can safely assume I find any kind of public celebration of these events equally disgusting. Nevertheless this was an opportunity to show that, even if they insisted on the death penalty, they could carry it out in as civilised a fashion as is possible for something so uncivilised. It was a missed opportunity and a bad omen for the future (if any more were needed).

[JAWS]

So either you think it is a reliable source of information, or you think it is the site of a lone conspiracy theorist. Which is it?You will have to work that out for yourself. If you have any difficulty, read the sites again, all the necessary information is contained there.

There are many things in life which I find you can rely on with great certainty and some you can almost guarantee will never ever disappoint you in your opinion of them.

[scorrie]

Fred.
You seem to know an awful lot about Iraq, Iraqi politics, could you please tell me how much time you have spent in that country, actually on the ground, experiencing personal contact with the people there. You are obviously not military, so presumably you may have been there in a civilian roll? I'm not being facetious, just a straight answer; none or a some. Please tell

http://forum.caithness.org/images/misc/progress.gif

I may be wrong bigpete but I get the feeling fred gets his information about most subjects via the internet.

[fred]

I may be wrong bigpete but I get the feeling fred gets his information about most subjects via the internet.

Including my information on what is happening in Caithness. I get lots of information by word of mouth from people who are local as well but experience has taught me it is usually isn't reliable.

[Conscience]

I may be wrong bigpete but I get the feeling fred gets his information about most subjects via the internet.

In 2007 where else can you get information? The public library is unlikely to have up to date information. Television and radio all have a political slant one way or another, the same goes for newspapers.
Used properly the internet is the greatest reference tool mankind has ever had, because it is constantly updated, renewed, refreshed. Because there is no single slant being put on anything. You can read points of view from hundreds of thousands of differing people from all over the world, get a more rounded view... or you could go down the library and dust off an out of date Britannica.

[North Rhins]

Dear Conscience,
In 2007 where else can you get information? The public library is unlikely to have up to date information. Most if not all Public Library’s have internet access.

Television and radio all have a political slant one way or another, the same goes for newspapers. Say’s who? Does the BBC lean toward the Tories or ITV toward Labour. Chanel 4 would be SDLP would it and Grampian would favour the SNP?


Used properly the internet is the greatest reference tool mankind has ever had, because it is constantly updated, renewed, refreshed. It is also one of the most dangerous reference tools known to man. Internet porn, its undeniable connection to child abuse and pedophilia, indecent images etc etc.

Because there is no single slant being put on anything. You can read points of view from hundreds of thousands of differing people from all over the world, get a more rounded view... So in essence everything we see on TV in this country, everything we hear on the radio and everything in the press is tainted. They all have a political agenda designed to dupe us poor uninformed public?

or you could go down the library and dust off an out of date Britannica. Sounds good to me.

[fred]

In 2007 where else can you get information? The public library is unlikely to have up to date information. Television and radio all have a political slant one way or another, the same goes for newspapers.
Used properly the internet is the greatest reference tool mankind has ever had, because it is constantly updated, renewed, refreshed. Because there is no single slant being put on anything. You can read points of view from hundreds of thousands of differing people from all over the world, get a more rounded view... or you could go down the library and dust off an out of date Britannica.

Bigpete's just doing a JAWS Conscience, if you can't argue with the information try and discredit the source.

[Conscience]

Dear Conscience,
Most if not all Public Library’s have internet access.

Which is what I was saying, is it not? The internet is the reference tool of choice.


Say’s who? Does the BBC lean toward the Tories or ITV toward Labour. Chanel 4 would be SDLP would it and Grampian would favour the SNP?

I would say Channel 4 is the PC Liberal channel, ITV is the socialist 'working man's' channel, the BBC... hard to say, but usually has to be sympathetic to the Government of the day, especially since Blair neutered it after the Hutton report.


It is also one of the most dangerous reference tools known to man. Internet porn, its undeniable connection to child abuse and pedophilia, indecent images etc etc.

All of which the average person will never come across, and if they did it would be no more than glancing an eye across the top shelf in the newsagent as you pick up your paper. To really see that stuff you would have to go out of your way to try and see it. Personally I don't, what you do is up to you.
As an aside, 'indecent' is subjective. Is Michelangelo's 'David' indecent? Or the Venus de Milo? Or perhaps Damien Hirst's 'Mother and Child'? Where do you draw the line?
I assume you would like the internet controlled, regulated, censored and only available to those you deem suitable? Yourself perhaps?



So in essence everything we see on TV in this country, everything we hear on the radio and everything in the press is tainted. They all have a political agenda designed to dupe us poor uninformed public?

If you think it isn't you are beyond naive.


or you could go down the library and dust off an out of date Britannica. Sounds good to me.



Your choice, but your knowledge of current events will be badly lacking. But hey, great to still have an Empire eh? Long live King George! :lol:

[JAWS]

In 2007 where else can you get information? The public library is unlikely to have up to date information. Television and radio all have a political slant one way or another, the same goes for newspapers.
Used properly the internet is the greatest reference tool mankind has ever had, because it is constantly updated, renewed, refreshed. Because there is no single slant being put on anything. You can read points of view from hundreds of thousands of differing people from all over the world, get a more rounded view... or you could go down the library and dust off an out of date Britannica.Or, to give another viewpoint, it has given every set of crackpots in the world the opportunity to set themselves up as "unbiased experts" on any subject you care to think of.

It also means that people can always find some site which will "confirm" whatever propaganda they wish to propagate as anybody who makes even the most cursory check will quickly find.

What is the old saying? Doesn't it go something like, "A lie is halfway round the World before the truth gets it's running shoes on."
Just look at what happens when the Caithness Rumour Mill is in full flow to see how reliable some internet information is.

Yes, the internet, when used properly, can be a very good source of information. But the phrase to concentrate on there is "when used properly".

The best advice I can give to anybody who is told to look at a particular single page on any site is the check it's home page, it's contact details and a quick check of some of it's other items.
That way you will soon come to a conclusion about how reliable and unbiased a site’s contents are or if you are just being force-fed on "proof" of somebody's pet hobby-horse.

[MadPict]

Used properly the internet is the greatest reference tool mankind has ever had, because it is constantly updated, renewed, refreshed. Because there is no single slant being put on anything. You can read points of view from hundreds of thousands of differing people from all over the world, get a more rounded view... or you could go down the library and dust off an out of date Britannica.


Unfortunately the quality of information can be very bad. While a site such as Wikipedia tries to ensure the accuracy of it's content there is a lot of poorly researched material included.

Anyone can create a site claiming to be the fountain of all truth, above and beyond all recognised and accountable news outlets, and use the internet to post their warped interpretation of what is real and factual.

While the internet is of course a good tool to use for research, accuracy of material has to be considered.

On the other hand the accuracy of Brittanica and other respected publications has to be above the rest due to it being used as a reference...

[Jeemag_USA]

So in essence everything we see on TV in this country, everything we hear on the radio and everything in the press is tainted. They all have a political agenda designed to dupe us poor uninformed public?




If you think it isn't you are beyond naive.

This is what I tried to tell conscience at the beginning of the thread after conscience assured me the news.bbc.co.uk and The New York times were respectable sources of information, because I said I would rather use my own words than trust that of a news agency I was scoffed at. But now when the times suit, you can echo exactly what I was saying to you which is exactly why people shouldn't bother arguing with you, hypocritical double standards. Anyone can go back and check over it all. At the beginning of this thread you used three different sources from news agencies to back up your opinion without your own words, so was that beyond naivety? So if the BBC News is slanted towards the government of the day which is headed by the Poodle Blair, then why do you need to quote them to back up your arguments :lol:

[fred]

Some thoughts from the Iraqi blogger Riverbend:

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_riverbendblog_archive.html#116738820591 750213

Some more thoughts from the Iraqi blogger Riverbend:

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

[North Rhins]

Dear Conscience,

The time is late and you are obviously starting to get flustered. You are now starting to contradict your own statements, You have now admitted that public library’s do have up to date information by having access to the internet. Chanel 4 is a politically correct, Liberal TV station and therefore does not have a political slant. If you are going to enter the public arena then you really are going to have to get a grip on what you say. You really are starting to make some very basic mistakes.

But hey, great to still have an Empire eh? Long live King George! I may be beyond naïve as you so succinctly put it, but I do know that we no longer have an empire and Queen Elizabeth The First of Scotland, The Second Of England sits on the throne, not George. You are obviously a bit behind the times, are you sure your internet access is up to date? Or was it your attempt at sarcasm?

[Conscience]

This is what I tried to tell conscience at the beginning of the thread after they assured me the news.bbc.co.uk amd The New York times were respectable sources of information, because I said I would rather use my own words than trust that of a news agency I was scoffed at. But now when the times suit, you can echo exactly what I was saying to you which is exactly why people shouldn't bother arguing with you, hypocritical double standards. Anyone can go back and check over it all. At the beginning of this thread you used three different sources from news agencies to back up your opinion without your own words, so was the naivety? So if the BBC News is slanted towards the government of the day which is headed by the Poodle Blair, then why do you need to quote them to back up your arguments :lol:

You chose to use your own words without anything to back them up but hearsay. Which is more reliable? Hearsay, or a news agency with a political slant? I know the slant of the BBC, so I can account for it, but I can also view many other news sites to get a more balanced view.

What have you got? Hearsay. Gosh you must be SO well informed. :lol:

[Jeemag_USA]

You chose to use your own words without anything to back them up but hearsay. Which is more reliable? Hearsay, or a news agency with a political slant? I know the slant of the BBC, so I can account for it, but I can also view many other news sites to get a more balanced view.

What have you got? Hearsay. Gosh you must be SO well informed. :lol:

Somehow I knew you would take a while to scramble for an answer and also that it would make no sense when it came. I gave you an opportunity to use my words to prove to the readers where it is hearsay, because you accused me of having posted no fact in this thread but didn't care to prove this, and you still haven't. You have just said that if you believe that news agencies are not tainted then you are beyond naivety, ergo you are beyond naivety. Three times in this thread at the beginning you just directly quoted news agencies to make your statement and at no time in this thread have your proved that I have said nothing of fact, youn seem to think that a person speaking truths in their own words is not sensible and that if I cannot quote someone then I shouldn't be listened to. Who is naive. That is why this thread has become ridiculous. You continously fail to answer questions directly which makes posing any to you a completely fruitless task! ;)

[Conscience]

You have just said that if you believe that news agencies are not tainted then you are beyond naivety, ergo you are beyond naivety.

Did I not also just say I know they have a political slant? You should know thats what I just said because you quoted it. How can you be speaking the truth if you have no knowledge of the subject? You have done no research, you have quoted no sources. Fred was right, you obviously have nothing to say on the topic, so all you can do is attack the messenger.

[Conscience]

Dear Conscience,

The time is late and you are obviously starting to get flustered. You are now starting to contradict your own statements, You have now admitted that public library’s do have up to date information by having access to the internet. Chanel 4 is a politically correct, Liberal TV station and therefore does not have a political slant. If you are going to enter the public arena then you really are going to have to get a grip on what you say. You really are starting to make some very basic mistakes.

I said the internet was the reference tool of choice and that public libraries are out of date.. You then confirmed that point for me by stating public libraries now offer internet access. Thankyou for making my point for me.

And since when was the politically correct liberal NOT a political slant? Of course it is a political slant!


But hey, great to still have an Empire eh? Long live King George! I may be beyond naïve as you so succinctly put it, but I do know that we no longer have an empire and Queen Elizabeth The First of Scotland, The Second Of England sits on the throne, not George. You are obviously a bit behind the times, are you sure your internet access is up to date? Or was it your attempt at sarcasm?

Well you seem totally distrustful of the internet and modern reference sources, I assumed you would be getting all your information from old copies of the Britannica.

[JAWS]

Bigpete's just doing a JAWS Conscience, if you can't argue with the information try and discredit the source.Or you can use Fred's alternative method. If somebody discredits the source you quote, forget about the site and attack the witness to distract attention from the truth.
It's an old lawyer's and tired politician's trick. If a witness is causing your client problems, forget the evidence, attack the witness.

I am, however, surprised that Fred has paid me so great a compliment. He obviously believes that my opinions are held in such high esteem by posters that they just accept my view without even bothering to check things for themselves.
On that point, Fred, yet again I have reason to believe you are in serious error and I really do believe that most other people would wholeheartedly agree with me on that point. I'm sure they would be intelligent enough to check for themselves and make up their own minds about things.

To simplify things for people I will point out a simple fact. There are two types of people in the World, those who agree with every view Fred holds and the Millions of Idiots who know absolutely nothing at all!
I really am glad that I fall into the latter category, I find the people there much less fanatical about trying to force everybody else to accept their view of things and no others.

[Conscience]

wow just checked the news! saddam is to be put to death this weekend.
i never thought it would happen this fast actually.
the us gov. is handing him over to the iraqui gov.
the info is here
http://www.cnn.com/


It now appears to have been a badly misjudged move. The sunni muselms are up in arms and their anger is growing. Looks like the pot is about to boil over. :(

[bigpete]

Fred.
You seem to know an awful lot about Iraq, Iraqi politics, could you please tell me how much time you have spent in that country, actually on the ground, experiencing personal contact with the people there. You are obviously not military, so presumably you may have been there in a civilian roll? I'm not being facetious, just a straight answer; none or a some. Please tell

[Conscience]

It's an old lawyer's and tired politician's trick. If a witness is causing your client problems, forget the evidence, attack the witness.


Which is what you have been doing all the way through this topic, is it not?


I find the people there much less fanatical about trying to force everybody else to accept their view of things and no others.


Did YOU really just have the front to say this? :lol:

[North Rhins]

I don’t know about anyone else and I’m only speaking for myself but whilst I applaud and would uphold the very principle of free speech, I am afraid that these posts by ‘Conscience’ are really little more than uncoordinated, unsubstantiated windups. In my opinion this ‘Conscience’ whoever he or she may be, has brown arms, because they are a professional muck stirrer. For all I know he or she may be a plant, a sleeper working for MI5, MI6 or M&S. They could even be from the other side of the ‘Big Pond’ operating on behalf of the FBI, CIA or C&A. There is nothing on the Public Profile to suggest who or where they are from. These things do happen I know they do because I’ve seen it on the internet.

Just remember this ‘Just because you are paranoid doesn’t mean that they are not out to get you.’

Good night and God (whichever that one may be) Bless.

[Jeemag_USA]

For all I know he or she may be a plant, a sleeper working for MI5, MI6 or M&S. They could even be from the other side of the ‘Big Pond’ operating on behalf of the FBI, CIA or C&A.

I don't think he would have got past the interview stage :lol:

[canuck]

"Lost" might well describe where I am on this thread. Granted, I got caught up in the thought that Thursoboy "Jeemag" might get drafted by the USA and my agonizing over that possibility has more or less side tracked me from the discussion. Could someone give me a short precise of the gist of this discussion and maybe explain how it relates to the death of one desperate elderly man?

[Jeemag_USA]

"Lost" might well describe where I am on this thread. Granted, I got caught up in the thought that Thursoboy "Jeemag" might get drafted by the USA and my agonizing over that possibility has more or less side tracked me from the discussion. Could someone give me a short precise of the gist of this discussion and maybe explain how it relates to the death of one desperate elderly man?

I am sure Conscience will give you one shortly, though I cannot vouch for its validity ;)

I am dodging the draft when it comes, not as a consciencous objector though, I am going to make a stand on the grounds of being "peely wally" :lol:

[JAWS]

[quote=JAWS;177874]
It's an old lawyer's and tired politician's trick. If a witness is causing your client problems, forget the evidence, attack the witness.

Which is what you have been doing all the way through this topic, is it not?

Did YOU really just have the front to say this? :lol:The answer to the first point is that all I have done is point to the sites quoted and suggest that people check round them to see if they are producing a balanced point of view.
People can then decide for themselves how reliable the sites are about how balanced and reliable they are. I'm certain that they do not just take my word about the sites and credit them with enough intelligence to decide for themselves.

I certainly do not recall attacking either you or Fred on anything other than the views you have expressed. I have not questioned your right to express your views or indeed to hold them.
I certainly have not questioned the intelligence of either of you, or anybody else, neither have I ever made any suggestions as to anybody being in a physically impossible position.

On your second point, Yes I did, and still do have the front to say that and see no reason to change my opinion on that point. If you consider my own views to be in any way extreme then that is your prerogative. You have every right to think anything you wish about me. If you find a point of view of me which has not been expressed before I will personally congratulate you and that includes various suggestions about relationships or otherwise within my family.

[Conscience]

I don’t know about anyone else and I’m only speaking for myself but whilst I applaud and would uphold the very principle of free speech, I am afraid that these posts by ‘Conscience’ are really little more than uncoordinated, unsubstantiated windups. In my opinion this ‘Conscience’ whoever he or she may be, has brown arms, because they are a professional muck stirrer. For all I know he or she may be a plant, a sleeper working for MI5, MI6 or M&S. They could even be from the other side of the ‘Big Pond’ operating on behalf of the FBI, CIA or C&A. There is nothing on the Public Profile to suggest who or where they are from. These things do happen I know they do because I’ve seen it on the internet.

Just remember this ‘Just because you are paranoid doesn’t mean that they are not out to get you.’

Good night and God (whichever that one may be) Bless.

You cannot add to the discussion so now you go for character assassination. I have voiced my opinions. I was not aware that was against the rules of this site?

[Conscience]

I don't think he would have got past the interview stage :lol:


I refer you to my previous post.

[MadPict]

JAWS,
Conscience is confused enough so it might be an idea to sort out your quote tags in 240 (http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=177887&postcount=240) otherwise they'll be thinking you are saying what they are saying.

[scorrie]

Including my information on what is happening in Caithness. I get lots of information by word of mouth from people who are local as well but experience has taught me it is usually isn't reliable.

Answer the question fred. Ever been to Iraq or not? My bookie instinct says you are singing from the Google hymn sheet. Either way, please answer bigpete's simple question. You are a master of avoiding the question in hand.

[scorrie]

In 2007 where else can you get information? The public library is unlikely to have up to date information. Television and radio all have a political slant one way or another, the same goes for newspapers.
Used properly the internet is the greatest reference tool mankind has ever had, because it is constantly updated, renewed, refreshed. Because there is no single slant being put on anything. You can read points of view from hundreds of thousands of differing people from all over the world, get a more rounded view... or you could go down the library and dust off an out of date Britannica.

So people without access to the internet are unable to make a valued contribution? I think not.

You are dreaming the biggest pipe dream ever if you think that people posting on the internet are in any way neutral. Even if you had time to read hundreds of thousands of opinions I am sure you would find that most are at one or other polar equivalent. People with neutral, rounded opinions are usually the ones that get on with life, it is the fanatics on either side that seem to spend their time spouting the "truth" on the internet. As the ither man said "yer needin beeger glesses son"

[fred]

"Lost" might well describe where I am on this thread. Granted, I got caught up in the thought that Thursoboy "Jeemag" might get drafted by the USA and my agonizing over that possibility has more or less side tracked me from the discussion. Could someone give me a short precise of the gist of this discussion and maybe explain how it relates to the death of one desperate elderly man?

I don't know canuck.

My personal opinion is that the trial was unfair because the Americans kept changing the judge if it looked like he may be a bit lenient and the defence lawyers kept getting shot. I also said that I think the effect of the hanging will be to make Saddam Hussein a martyre.

I haven't seen any counter arguments, plenty of insults and inuendo but nothing to show that what I posted wasn't true.

[scorrie]

Fred.
You seem to know an awful lot about Iraq, Iraqi politics, could you please tell me how much time you have spent in that country, actually on the ground, experiencing personal contact with the people there. You are obviously not military, so presumably you may have been there in a civilian roll? I'm not being facetious, just a straight answer; none or a some. Please tell

I think you are flogging a dead keyboard bigpete. Perhaps better to ask fred if he has ever been beyond a search engine or given an opinion on the weather without researching the last 2000 years to support his "opinion"

[JAWS]

I don't know canuck.

My personal opinion is that the trial was unfair because the Americans kept changing the judge if it looked like he may be a bit lenient and the defence lawyers kept getting shot. I also said that I think the effect of the hanging will be to make Saddam Hussein a martyre.

I haven't seen any counter arguments, plenty of insults and inuendo but nothing to show that what I posted wasn't true.We arre already well aware of your opinion that America is responsible for every evil in the World.

You have stated what your opinion is. So be it, it's your opinion and you're welcome to it.

[Conscience]

I think you are flogging a dead keyboard bigpete. Perhaps better to ask fred if he has ever been beyond a search engine or given an opinion on the weather without researching the last 2000 years to support his "opinion"

So are you saying it is foolish to research a topic in order to make informed comment? That it is better to comment based on hearsay and rumour?

[scotsboy]

So are you saying it is foolish to research a topic in order to make informed comment? That it is better to comment based on hearsay and rumour?

It is normal protocol to detail your references when researching a topic. Whilst completing the research you should also rate them for reliability, pertinence etc.
I don't think that is happening.....is it?