Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Thoughts on Saddam's capture


PsychicPenguin

Recommended Posts

Saddam should be drowned in a bath filled with acid. Why waste time? You cannot trust any information that he may give up during any trial. Let's just get rid of him and move on with the mission to rid this world of all terrorism. We have been dealing with it for too long now. 25 plus years!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Nxt2Hvn

    13

  • Nancy

    12

  • PsychicPenguin

    9

  • bathory

    8

Saddam should be drowned in a bath filled with acid. Why waste time? You cannot trust any information that he may give up during any trial. Let's just get rid of him and move on with the mission to rid this world of all terrorism. We have been dealing with it for too long now. 25 plus years!

Mmmmm.. You bring up an interesting option also!! w00t.gif

huh.gifblink.gifcool.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Nxt2Hvn! I am really happy to see that we are finally doing something about it. For the past 25 years or more we have been seeing planes getting hijacked, innocent civilians taken hostage, embassy's being blown to pieces and hardly ever going after the one's responsible for it. Now that we are, we have all of these liberal's stating we are doing wrong. How are we wrong? Is it wrong to arrest someone that has committed theft? Is it wrong to place someone on death row that has killed a child?

Now we have the Vatican coming against us because we are treating Saddam like a cow. What about the thousands of people in his own country that he killed just because they did not follow his beliefs?

I am sorry if what I say hurts another. But I am tired of the hurt that is being placed upon this world today by thugs and their beliefs.

Down with terrorism and anyone who follows!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Down with terrorism and anyone who follows!

thumbsup.gifthumbsup.gif

I am all for the Death Penalty... but in Saddam's beliefs and his followers beliefs... it is good to die for what you believe in... so killing him would almost be doing him a favor....

why not ... instead of killing him... let's have fun torturing him!!! Mwahahahah!!!! devil.gif

He is use to living the life of luxury.. being in complete control... eating the finest foods and wearing the finest clothes living in the finest palace!

Take all that away from him... and keep him locked up in a small, dark, damp, smelly cell..... and if I was in control of his fate.... take him out an BULL WHIP him once a day!!!!!

We could also mame him... cut his ears off... cut both his pinky toes off... shove hot nails under his finger nails... dontgetit.gifhuh.gif ...oops .. uh... sorry .. got a little carried away.

whistling2.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That sounds great. But I would not want to let it go for too long because we will just be wasting money on keeping him alive. He's cheaper dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am really happy to see that we are finally doing something about it. For the past 25 years or more we have been seeing planes getting hijacked, innocent civilians taken hostage, embassy's being blown to pieces and hardly ever going after the one's responsible for it. Now that we are, we have all of these liberal's stating we are doing wrong. How are we wrong?

Down with terrorism and anyone who follows!

hate to nitpick, but there has never been a link between Saddam and terrorism. Dont get me wrong, he is guilty of other crimes against humanity, but lets try to keep things in perspective. thumbsup.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hate to nitpick, but there has never been a link between Saddam and terrorism. Dont get me wrong, he is guilty of other crimes against humanity, but lets try to keep things in perspective

uh yes there has:)

Hell the Ex-Director of the CIA during Clintons reign seems to think so, and i have a feeling he would know more than most of us:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

uh yes there has:)

Hell the Ex-Director of the CIA during Clintons reign seems to think so, and i have a feeling he would know more than most of us:)

Ah right, the CIA, those purveyors of truth. Im sorry, but although I agree obviously the CIA know a hell of a lot more than us, I dont think they let on how much they know.

Besides, Bill Clinton held meetings with the Taliban, Osama Bin Ladens family used to live in the US of A and hold shares in Microsoft and numerous other companies, many American companies armed the Iraqis and Afghanis, and McDonalds used to donate money to the IRA. I afraid the good old US of A actually has more links to terrorism than Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hell the Ex-Director of the CIA during Clintons reign seems to Besides, Bill Clinton held meetings with the Taliban, Osama Bin Ladens family used to live in the US of A and hold shares in Microsoft and numerous other companies, many American companies armed the Iraqis and Afghanis, and McDonalds used to donate money to the IRA. I afraid the good old US of A actually has more links to terrorism than Iraq.

mowo......

Please, don't go down this road again. We have had Thread after Thread "locked" due to this change of direction in content. This topic is about "Capture" not "Clinton" nor "Bash the USA"!!

PLEASE do not rehash the past and KEEP the PRESENT in mind. If you wish to debate what happened years ago, with your comments, start another Thread!

We DO know Hussein was connected in many, many ways with terrorism:

Training Camps for Terror in Northern Iraq.

Sending substantial amounts of money to "Suicide Bombers" families.

The CIA is now interragating Hussein. We are receiving a great deal of data that keeps pointing right back to Hussein, including the name M. Attah (sp?) ......

As the new information is being verified, pursued and digested, I hope you can apologize for the last sentence in your Post I've just quoted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the new information is being verified, pursued and digested, I hope you can apologize for the last sentence in your Post I've just quoted.

wink2.gif Read "Dude wheres my country?" by Michael Moore. And try not to let jingoism cloud your judgement. thumbsup.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wink2.gif Read "Dude wheres my country?" by Michael Moore. And try not to let jingoism cloud your judgement. thumbsup.gif

Perhaps you had difficulity reading my post and request.........

Please do not go there.

Please give me some credit for a tad of intelligence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moore is as big a liar as anyone in the government, perhaps you should research allot of the crap he spews before believing him:) Sorry but it had to be said...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

perhaps I have. I have only referred to the facts I know to be true.

Anyway, this thread was originally started to discuss conspiracy theories surrounding Saddams capture.

Yes I believe Saddam should be brought to justice, but I also cannot help letting the facts get in the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should we say no to terrorism?

- perspective -

In recent conflicts in Yugoslavia, we supported the independence movement of Bosnia, Croatia, and Kosovo from Serbia. We call these guerillas as freedom fighters as they are fighting for their freedom. The Serbs on the other hand are the "bad guys", as they are "killing the innocents".

While this theme is mantained in the news, there are some facts that go unnoticed. The behavior of the Kosovo militas were not any better than their "evil empire". The militas were known to collect the fund from the community by force, and also abduct children for future fighters. In short, for the Serbians, these freedom fighters were simply terrorists and criminals, and it is their duty to mantain stability in the region, by killing them.

Terrorists and freedom fighters are really the same kind of people, viewed from two different perspective. Luke Skywalker and Robin Hood are heroes, but they are simply terrorists for their enemies. How many of us actually supported the independence movement in Bosnia from Yugoslavia, Cechnya from Russia, and even Afghanistan from Soviet? Please note that these freedom fighters are simply terrorists resorting to bombing buildings and killing innocent civilians, well covered under elaborate words of our media.

In its strict definition, terrorism is simply a form of fighting strategy used by a group that is to weak for an open combat. The resulting violence and civilian casualities exist in any form of fighting, wether it is a suicide bomber or a "smart" tomahawk missile "accidentaly" hitting a marketplace.

Our enemy is not the terrorists, but rather the one responsible for 9/11 attack, or Osama bin Laden and his freedom fighters (read terrorist). I doubt that Saddam Hussein has any connection with Al-Qaeda, but he is connected with the freedom fighters in Palestina. At the same time, he is also fighting the Kurds terrorists (read freedom fighters).

Rather than saying "no to terrorism", I think it is much better to see it in terms of "who is our enemy" instead. In this case, Saddam is our enemy wether or not he is involved in terrorism, and the same goes with Osama bin Laden. Saying no to terrorism is the same as saying no to our own independence.

Something to think about ... original.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

O..M...G...!!! I am too tired to go through all of this again!!!

LAST TIME....

BUSH DID THE RIGHT THING... I BACK HIM ALL THE WAY!!! I FEEL A LOT SAFER NOW THAT SADDAM IS OUT OF POWER!!! (HOPEFULLY OSAMA IS NEXT - I HAVE FAITH THEY WILL FIND HIM TOO)

I BELIEVE THAT SADDAM IS A TERRORIST... AND THE POSSIBLE THREAT OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION BEING MADE BY HIM AND HIS FOLLOWERS AND BEING IN HIS HANDS... TO USE WHENEVER HE WANTS TO....

IT HAD TO BE STOPPED!!!!!

I know you are gonna say ... "But they haven't found any weapons of mass destruction".....

THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT HE DIDN'T DESTROY THEM OR SMUGGLE THEM OUT OF THE COUNTRY BEFORE THE WAR!!!

THE FACT IS THAT THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT THERE WERE PLANS TO CREATE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

SADDAM HAS SO MUCH HATRED FOR THE U.S. HE WOULD HAVE MOST LIKELY USED THEM ON THE U.S..... AND YOU DON'T CALL THAT TERRORISM?

UH.. OKAY? blink.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm quite amused to read how "civlized" people of this forum want Saddam punished in the most barbaric ways. Torture, eye for eye, etc... In fact some may have more in common with him that they might think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not forget what he did in Desert Storm when he sent missiles both at Kuwait and Israel. Israel wasn't even involved in Desert Storm. Why would he attack a country that is not attacking him. If that is not terrorism, then what is???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would he attack a country that is not attacking him.  If that is not terrorism, then what is???

Try to re-read that post again, after removing the first two sentences. Don't you think that the meaning has changed a lot now? (hint: replaced "he" with appropriate subject")

wink2.gif

It is called "preemptive strike."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather than saying "no to terrorism", I think it is much better to see it in terms of "who is our enemy" instead. In this case, Saddam is our enemy wether or not he is involved in terrorism, and the same goes with Osama bin Laden. Saying no to terrorism is the same as saying no to our own independence.

never a wiser word spoken, Bush is maintaining western interests by fighting against enemies that like it or not will always be there, no matter what the pacifists seem to think

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In its strict definition, terrorism is simply a form of fighting strategy used by a group that is to weak for an open combat. The resulting violence and civilian casualities exist in any form of fighting, wether it is a suicide bomber or a "smart" tomahawk missile "accidentaly" hitting a marketplace.

Our enemy is not the terrorists, but rather the one responsible for 9/11 attack, or Osama bin Laden and his freedom fighters (read terrorist). I doubt that Saddam Hussein has any connection with Al-Qaeda, but he is connected with the freedom fighters in Palestina. At the same time, he is also fighting the Kurds terrorists (read freedom fighters).

Rather than saying "no to terrorism", I think it is much better to see it in terms of "who is our enemy" instead. In this case, Saddam is our enemy wether or not he is involved in terrorism, and the same goes with Osama bin Laden. Saying no to terrorism is the same as saying no to our own independence.

May I add to your definition of Terrorism?

I agree with what you have stated, however..... in addition, the mere word "Terror" is just that. "Terrorists" do not even have to strike to inflict their goals. The threat of potential terror creates many psychological ramifications even if no physical action is taken.

As a result, these "freedom fighters/terrorists" can sit back, smile and enjoy watching those threatened, jump through hoops to avoid any future attack.

The above is what makes Osama so evil. Add up all of the unknowns and bammm, you have people just plain frightened, afraid and yes, terrorized.

These bands of fanatics do not wear uniforms. They do not follow conventional Rules of Engagement. It is very difficult to ascertain just "Who" the enemy actually is, other than the Leaders and their lower ranks subordinates.

Our enemy in not just Osama. It is also those who are seduced to follow Osama, Saddam, etc.

As a result, I have difficulty accepting your last paragraph, with the exception of the last sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the contribution Nancy original.gif

Osama (or whoever did it) was quite succesful when we worried about anthrax in our mailbox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm quite amused to read how "civlized" people of this forum want Saddam punished in the most barbaric ways. Torture, eye for eye, etc... In fact some may have more in common with him that they might think.

Yup, but what can we do? The media has been very succesful here. I can still remember the days when we have our attenstion focused on Afghanistan. Everybody I met says how ridiculous the "Eye for an eye" policy employed by the Tallibans. An article from Newsweek reported "If we didn't liberate Afghanistan, these people are going to loose their hands." Going further back, one of the Rambo movie was dedicated to the "herroism of the talliban wariors in Afghanistan". It is sad that only a few people can actually read the facts hidden underneath the elaborate words and opinions.

Here are some serious problems with "Eye for an eye"

1. "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5: 38-39)

By this prhase alone, Christians in the US will not support this option. Considering Christianity holds the majority here, an "eye for an eye" policy is not democratic. Any Christian supporting it is a hypocrite.

2. Saddam Hussein has only two eyes. It might be the biggest problem with this policy.

3. Contradiction with Afghanistan (it might be the reason why it's gone from our attention).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.