[oclug] "A Fine Job"
lists at l8r.net
Wed Aug 23 15:03:23 EDT 2006
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:03:26 -0400
"David F. Skoll" <dfs at roaringpenguin.com> wrote:
> Brad Barnett wrote:
> [A bunch of apologies for Saddam Hussein]
> I didn't realize you were so completely blinkered by ideology.
> Why don't you open a newspaper and read some of the testimony
> being given *right now* by victims of Saddam Hussein's attempted
> If you're too lazy to look up some references, here
> are a few (found in 2 minutes on Google...)
> Also, search for "Halabja".
Most of the news articles I've seen today, indicate that because Saddam
used chemical weapons, and because he attacked villages, his actions were
targeted primarily against civilians.
None of the two above ideas, nor a handful of witnesses proves that this
is indeed the case. By that reasoning, all of the attacks that the
Israeli army recently was forced to take, to defend itself, are also
Let's be perfectly frank here. The use of chemical weapons does not make
one a criminal, otherwise the US would be one of the largest on the
planet. Attacking villages does not, otherwise many nations would be..
including Israel... after all, with Hezbollah so entrenched, what choice
did Israel have? Hezbollah and the local citizenry, in many cases, were
one and the same. I could certainly find thousands upon thousands of
Lebanese citizens that would claim that Israel was trying to wipe out all
of Lebanon. That was clearly not the case, but are you going to suggest
that their testimony be held in the highest regard? Why, then, do you
suggest that the testimony of Hussein's sworn enemies be held in high
Do you believe them to be entirely impartial? Do you believe the US to be
entirely impartial, when parties are even now starting a bandwagon to
Saddam may indeed have been acting to "defend the realm". He may have had
to attack those villages, because they were literally all occupied, or
mostly occupied by insurgents. This was indeed his claim, and I do not
see anything refuting it.
Naturally, I do not know with a certainty which is correct, but the
one-world view which is constantly spouted by the US led media is
certainly not the only part of the story. The US currently needs cause
for entering Iraq, as every reason that claimed for entering Iraq,
has been proven to be wrong or a lie. Political justification is
required, and showing Saddam in the worst possible light helps to justify
Saddam is not all guilty, and everyone else is not all innocent.
> > Saddam is not innocent, but as I stated above, "considering the
> > religious and political infighting", Saddam did indeed run that
> > country well.
> "At least under Mussolini, the trains in Italy ran on time."
> > Take note, there are still Kurds and Shiites alive in Iraq. This
> > indicates a less-than-total policy of retaliation against these ethnic
> > groups.
> There were still Jews left in Europe in 1945, and there were still
> Tutsis left in Rwanda at the end of 1994. What's your point? If
> you don't manage to get 'em all, it's not genocide?
So, because Israel attacked one religious group in Lebanon, that was an
attempt at genocide? It was not, for that was not the intent.
Do you know what was in the heart of Saddam? What his intent was? No,
you do not. You do know, however, know what his prosecutors and enemies
state about him. He sure as hell isn't an angel, but I do not believe
everything stated about him.
> I don't think we can have a meaningful discussion; your response makes
> me too angry to continue.
You should not let yourself get angry. Political discussions are best in
a cold environment...
More information about the OCLUG