|
Author
|
Topic: Saddam May Face Execution Within Hours
|
BornUnderDioscuri
Moderator Posts: 49
From:
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted December 30, 2006 06:20 PM
  
My friend just read in an Egyptian newspaper that Egypt has strict anti freedom of speech laws especially with regards to writing on the internet. I believe that isnt a sign of Americanization...IP: Logged |
Sweet Stars
unregistered
|
posted December 30, 2006 06:35 PM
Looks like your friend doesn't know there are alot of Egyptian Christians.Egyptian girls I know are usually Christian even back in their country.
I said it was mostly Americanized.
I didn't say it followed American laws.
They have a huge presence there. Just like in Lebanon and Syria where there are alot of Christians.
And Americans.
Oil trades can sometimes make one country lick another's a$$.
I don't feel you have an Egyptian friend because she doesn't know her own country.
An Egyptian Newspaper being strict?
I do not believe that is the only thing she could come up with. IP: Logged |
Sweet Stars
unregistered
|
posted December 30, 2006 06:37 PM
We have tough freedom of speech laws here also.
Remember, you don;t go along with Hitler Jr's war then you are a traitor and terrorist supporter.
According to Republicans, you, Jwhop, and Pidua.
IP: Logged |
SecretGardenAgain
unregistered
|
posted December 30, 2006 06:39 PM
They have strict press control rules since Hosni mobarak survived two assassination attempts (probably) perpetrated by the Muslim Brotherhood. The lack of freedom of press isnt such a big deal to people who belong to other parties that are anti Hosni (Arab socialists, Nassrians and blah) in fact theres a very funny satire magazine that makes like weekly cartoons of Hosni and Suzanne, but it more applies to trying to control the Muslim Brotherhood because they are gaining ground among the public since Hosnis alliance with the US post 911. To say that this control is a result of a tyrant would be a serious misstatement. And yes Dulce Luna thanks for clearing up, Jwhop first you said, the enemy of our enemy is our friend (justifying US support for saddam) then you say you were pro hanging him? Either lie your loyalties with the US govt that you support (Republicans at the time in govt) or go for the just stance (that he deserved to be hanged that early no matter what he was doing for the US). All I ask for is consistency. And yes BUD I can assume that Jwhop would support that government, because Jw has made it clear before this that he is a staunch conservative who supports the Bush family, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. and Republicans in general. If Im wrong Jw, correct me, because Ive seen that statement with my own eyes posted before. Following this is the natural implication that he would support Bush Sr.'s actions in the ME at the time. Also BUD you commented abt the Egypt Nigeria Saudi etc thread. We had a HUGE thread a couple of months ago abt womens rights violations particularly in Pakistan but also in other Muslim countries which ran like twelve pages or something crazy like that and I posted at least ten times in that thread. So no the topic isnt ignored it was addressed at length I am just tired of seeing it pop up everyday as if its 'news' its not its OLD and there is actually constructive change going on, so why not focus on the OTHER side of the story now that we HAVE discussed the negative side? Which we really have, and at length. I would think that no one is 'obsessed' with Iraq, or at least I should say myself, I cant speak for everyone, but as a Muslim it really is hurtful to see Muslim countries world round undcergoing so much bloodshed and warfare. Iraq Palestine and such really consume my concern most of the time although it would be completely inaccurate to say that I am not aware or do not care about other nation's dilemmas. But you must admit muslim countries are suffering extensively nowadays, and since youve studied Islamic studies you would understand the concept of the Islamic ummah (family). Quite literally it hurts like when family is hurt.
IP: Logged |
SecretGardenAgain
unregistered
|
posted December 30, 2006 06:40 PM
Also BUD thanks for the compliment... we say in Arabic its always better to have an intelligent opponent than an intelligent friend, because opponents teach you how to push your own limits in argumentation. IP: Logged |
BornUnderDioscuri
Moderator Posts: 49
From:
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted December 30, 2006 06:42 PM
Of course she doesnt know there are Egyptian Christians...she only is one...  Smart one Sweet Stars...shows how much u assume...i actually have a few Egyptian friends, the one i mentioned now is Christian , few are Muslim. I also asked you to define Americanized...what does Americanized mean...do they dress in American way? Eat American food...does that make Americanization? Does participating with American bussiness make a country Americanized?
Use definition otherwise there is no argument.. quote:
I don't feel you have an Egyptian friend because she doesn't know her own country.
I fail to see how YOU have a right to say that being you dont live there...she does...shes not Egyptian American...shes only been here 3 years...especially when you havnt lived in Egypt and saying you know more about someone else's country than they do clearly shows just how arrogant you are... quote:
An Egyptian Newspaper being strict?I do not believe that is the only thing she could come up with.
Perhaps you could consider pre-k again and learning to read...I didnt say Egyptian newspaper was strict i said an egyptian newspaper posted a statistic of countries that curb freedom of speech with respect to Internet use very strictly and Egypt was at the top of that list (not #1). Second of all to me Americanization means following AMERICAN VALUES which happen to be freedom of speech, religion, trade, right to property, and pursuit of happiness...Egypt doesnt adhere to any of those clearly...thus not Americanized to me...thats why i told u to define Americanization IP: Logged |
SecretGardenAgain
unregistered
|
posted December 30, 2006 06:46 PM
Something else came to mind Re: Hosni's press control. If he didnt control the MB's press, then conservatives/people whatever would say, 'oh look MB is doing propoganda like Hezbollah and Hamas and theyre getting their foot in the door in govt' (rolls eyes) and that would be considered evil and a bad reflection of Egypt. Now that he is controlling it and not letting that surface in politics, that is considered evil too? Sounds a bit harsh to me.IP: Logged |
BornUnderDioscuri
Moderator Posts: 49
From:
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted December 30, 2006 06:52 PM
quote:
To say that this control is a result of a tyrant would be a serious misstatement.
Never said that SGA I wasnt here back then so i appologize for missing that thread, i speak only from what i observed, you cant expect me to read all threads. Im just talking about what i have seen since i joined in October. I believe Jwhop did correct you there about his personal beliefs. I dont like generalizations and know that you dont either. quote:
but as a Muslim it really is hurtful to see Muslim countries world round undcergoing so much bloodshed and warfare. Iraq Palestine and such really consume my concern most of the time although it would be completely inaccurate to say that I am not aware or do not care about other nation's dilemmas. But you must admit muslim countries are suffering extensively nowadays, and since youve studied Islamic studies you would understand the concept of the Islamic ummah (family). Quite literally it hurts like when family is hurt.
Of course SGA its well understood thats why I dont judge you for your opinions. Nor do I judge anyone for their opinion AS LONG as they can back them up. And i said many times on these threads that I like the way u use proof for your statements (one of the few people here who does)rather than just participate in ideological mudd slinging. I just wish you would take a look at what some people on your side are saying and how some of the loudest ones dont even bother with any proof...as Theo Roosevelt said "thread softly but carry a big stick"... quote:
Also BUD thanks for the compliment... we say in Arabic its always better to have an intelligent opponent than an intelligent friend, because opponents teach you how to push your own limits in argumentation.
That is in fact a very very wise proverb and I am VERY happy i took my Islamic Political Thought class (got my best grade there A+) without agreeing with a word the teacher said. I honestly feel i learned so much simply because i got to hear what the other side is saying and a lot of it makes sense. So thank you very much IP: Logged |
BornUnderDioscuri
Moderator Posts: 49
From:
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted December 30, 2006 06:54 PM
SGA I didnt say any of it is EVIL at all..none of the press control didnt call it evil...Sweet Stars said Egypt is Americanized, i asked her to define Americanization. She did not...then i defined it as adhering to American values and said therefore Egypt isnt Americanized because it doesnt adhere to main American values I.E. freedom of speech. No where did i say its evil or wrong. IP: Logged |
SecretGardenAgain
unregistered
|
posted December 30, 2006 06:56 PM
Freedom of press: I already addressed that...Freedom of religion: It exists for Muslims and Christians (largely, not completely) but yes the Jews were expelled, which I Do not condone, but like I said first of all they didnt die of starvation in the desert they went to Israel where they were better compensated financially, and second, Israel also kicked out tons of Palis from their homes and put them in camps. Anyways, altho Christians in Egypt have complaints, but still they largely dominate the markets that they want to (jewelry, etc.) and their complaints are no diff than those of Muslims (there are so many diff sects, Sunni, Shia, etc) that they are all treated marginally by each other. Trade: Well you have to understand that since Egypt has had issues (to put it lightly) with Israel of course there are trade restrictions. There is no mandate to trade with someone; economically (god bless Keynes heart, that clever sexy little Gemini  ) a country will only trade if its benefit lies with trading, and if Egypt is politically hurt by free trade, then there is no jusitification for it. Also, the current govt (And other republican govts) have been anti free trade, so I dont see why we shud hold other countries to that standard. Pursuit of happiness--a centrally american concept. Personally I think we're too obsessed with 'feeling good' which might explain why the US is so medicated as a whole, so obese, and so obsessed with instant gratification (also the high divorce rates maybe...happiness trumps patience, compromise and stability unfortunately....) Right to property, once again it is unfair for instance in Saudi (where no one but Saudi citizens can own property) but Egypt I dont think so, property is so cheap and sadly its only the rich people who can truly afford property, but then that is not an intentional discrimination, its the market process taking its toll. IP: Logged |
Sweet Stars
unregistered
|
posted December 30, 2006 07:07 PM
SGA my fellow non-brain washed Gemini,Good point 
IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted December 30, 2006 07:36 PM
quote:
And yes BUD I can assume that Jwhop would support that government, because Jw has made it clear before this that he is a staunch conservative who supports the Bush family, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. and Republicans in general. If Im wrong Jw, correct me, because Ive seen that statement with my own eyes posted before. Following this is the natural implication that he would support Bush Sr.'s actions in the ME at the time...SG
Consider yourself corrected SG. I made it clear that because of the press laying down for Saddam, most people here had no idea what was going on inside Iraq prior to late 1990. I am a conservative but I don't support Bush in all his policies. For instance, I don't support his immigration policy. Pid and I have discussed that here and neither of us agree with Bush. I also hold George Bush directly responsible for the loss of the House and Senate to the democrats. Sometimes I wonder who the hell is advising him. Neither did I agree with Bush senior on all issues. In fact, I didn't vote for him in 1992. By that time, most conservatives had heard his..."Read my lips, no new taxes" statement and watched him cave to the democrats and raise taxes. You have your timeframes confused. Bush senior was NOT President during the war between Iran and Iraq. Bush senior didn't become President until January 1989. I did support Bush senior and the Gulf War to remove Saddam's troops from Kuwait but then, so did most democrats. I do support George Bush on the economy, cutting taxes, instituting controls and standards over education and I understand the reasons for and support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, to assume my support for Bush, either or both or the Bush family is unqualified support is to overstate the case. It should be simple for you to understand that Saddam was going our way in the Iran/Iraq war and that the US would give Saddam some support. It should also be easy for you to understand the US was not going to let Saddam lose...and give Iraq's oil fields over to the insane Islamic fundamentalist Iranian radicals including the Ayatollah Khomeini. It should also be easy to understand why Bush senior didn't go into Iraq and remove Saddam in 1991. There would have been a power vacuum which Iran would have attempted to fill. The result would have been a broader war...because Iran would have attempted to invade Iraq and seize their oil fields. It was just as I said and there's no reason to go beyond what I said. "The enemy of our enemy is/was our friend". Certainly, Iran was an enemy nation at that point. The only reason they didn't get bombed back to the stone age IS because they released our diplomats the day Reagan took the Oath of Office. I have no doubt the bombers would have been in the air and several fleets including aircraft carriers would have been on their way to the Gulf in short order...had they not been immediately released. No doubt, the Iranians knew that too. Now, there are plenty of legitimate things to ding George Bush over...even if they are only because of political preferences. But, there's no excuse whatsoever for ripping Bush over the trial and execution date **edit and or method of execution of Saddam Hussein. That was an Iraqi affair...and rightfully so.
IP: Logged |
BornUnderDioscuri
Moderator Posts: 49
From:
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted December 30, 2006 07:43 PM
Sigh...SGA...there i go repeating myself...i didnt say those things were bad im trying to prove Egypt isnt Americanized according to my definition/ quote:
Pursuit of happiness--a centrally american concept. Personally I think we're too obsessed with 'feeling good' which might explain why the US is so medicated as a whole, so obese, and so obsessed with instant gratification (also the high divorce rates maybe...happiness trumps patience, compromise and stability unfortunately....)
YEA THAT WAS MY POINT! LOL IP: Logged |
Dulce Luna
Newflake Posts: 7
From: The Asylum, NC
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted December 30, 2006 08:05 PM
quote:
It should be simple for you to understand that Saddam was going our way in the Iran/Iraq war and that the US would give Saddam some support. It should also be easy for you to understand the US was not going to let Saddam lose...and give Iraq's oil fields over to the insane Islamic fundamentalist Iranian radicals including the Ayatollah Khomeini.
Of course its easy to understand because now you've just pointed out how inconsistent and fickle the U.S. really is....and not the protector of freedom "bringing democracy to everyone around the world". He was as bad then as he was 15 years later and yet he was your "friend". Murdering people back then, just as he was doing so 15 years later. Only after his hatred for the U.S. did he become a "terrorist" and a monster dictator. Freeing the Iraqi people my burro......more like protecting your own interests. IP: Logged |
cancerrg
unregistered
|
posted January 01, 2007 04:07 AM
:::Have you ever wondered BUD why you almost never see anyone here rip Castro, Stalin, Mao, Ho, Kim Jong Il, Saddam, Pol Pot or other communists/socialists/Stalinists/Maoists, alive or dead?::::
Just to add a point, i am yet to see a person outrightly supporting any of these names here .
as far as saddam and iran's ahmedinejad 's case is concerned , i have issues bcos as SG pointed out , the same saddam was so much dear to the american policy makers , didn't they know then how he had captured power in his country or what he was doing to his countrymen .
and ,to all the bush lovers , let me make this clear , its not about him only . its about the policies , its about the attitude .(btw, i dont really hate bush- check out the thread realting to his india visit)
my problem is with the american dominance and that too done in the name of ethics .
and same goes for the birth of alqeada , they were the same people who helped american interests in afgahnistan .
lastly , i am not anti america ( i have known some really nice americans here ) but i am aganist anyone 's dominance. at the same time i am firm beliver in practicalness , so i understand all this is simple politics.
thats why i request you ( the supporters) to accept that yes it was for the benefits rather than covering up in the name of service to humanity !
p.s.:yeah , i would like to know why doesn't iran have a right to go nuclear?
IP: Logged |
SecretGardenAgain
unregistered
|
posted January 01, 2007 05:38 AM
Sure Jwhop, the Judge and panel was Iraqi, but everyone understands that this new government, and the panel and judge as well, are Saddam haters and mostly from the Shiite and Kurds, or people who have historically reasons to hate Saddam on a personal level. The government is in cahoots with the US, it was PLACED there by the US, it would not be there if the US had not attacked Iraq, just as Saddam would not have weapons if the US had not given them, and Saddam would not have had such tremendous power and weaponry (developed during Iraq Iran war) if the US had not backed him. All these regimes that are spouting their political clout, well 90% of that came from the US, but all Im asking is that you admit that it DID come from the US. The US does support the current Iraqi regime, which is directly linked to the Judge and the panel. So the US has a huge influence. And many Arabs think that the trial was just a 'show' that thinks are being done in a civil court, when the US had every intention to get him hung as soon as possible no matter what. His second trial wasnt even concluded (the one against the Kurds) he was only found guilty of one of his cases so far. Besides, Saddam was a secularist from his youth and although he had his strong personal religious convictions (rolls eyes, I dont believe that personally, because if he DID why would he be so cruel, unforgiving, and harsh toward his own people and even his own FAMILY), but to other people at least you gotta admit he seems religious (walking around with the Quran blah blah so who am I to say hes a horrid muslim, Allah judges). But he didnt let his religion interfere with his governance--contrary to what people think. He executed Shiites because they were rebelling against his government and the Shiites are more religious (and tend to have more extremist groups in Iraq that stem from religiosity--many of these groups were FINANCED by IRAN--the US ENEMY as you said) so why wouldnt saddam be justified in killing them Jw? If theyre your enemy, and being funded by your enemy, shouldnt you be glad that Saddam killed them for you and didnt let them take over Iraq? Shouldnt you congratulate him and reward him instead of hanging him for killing 148 Shiites? Also, he killed Kurds because he was racist against them, and because he had an insecurity about them creating a stronghold and trying to break off (like the Kurds and Armenians in Turkey), but NOT for religious reasons. But this trial was conducted under the huge influence of US govt puppet Shiite govt in Iraq, so I didnt expect neutrality. Hey the trials happening in friggin Iraq, that is totally not neutral or fair. Everyone knows, its the basic of legal cases, that a neutral third ground is the first thing that a judge grants the prosecuted to avoid bias. From the first day this trial was flawed. A viewpoint from the other side: quote:
On March 16, 1988, the Kurdish town of Halabja was attacked with a mix of mustard gas and nerve agents, killing 5,000 civilians, and maiming, disfiguring, or seriously debilitating 10,000 more. (see Halabja poison gas attack) [7]. The attack occurred in conjunction with the 1988 al-Anfal campaign designed to reassert central control of the mostly Kurdish population of areas of northern Iraq and defeat the Kurdish peshmerga rebel forces. The United States now maintains that Saddam ordered the attack to terrorize the Kurdish population in northern Iraq [22], but Saddam's regime claimed at the time that Iran was responsible for the attack[23] and US analysts did not definitively reject the claim until several years later.
Yeah RG also I agree with you. Why should not Ahmadinejad have the nukes when everyone else can have them (Pakistan, India, N Korea, Israel LOL) the whole ME pretty much has them now, and US claims Saddam did too, so .... ? Do you expect Iran not to be matched up to Iraqs standards of weaponry even after they had a 10 year war? And has Iran gassed or mass murdered? They had a civil war in their own country, took some American hostages but all was well that ended well there was no 911 in those times that should shake the Americans or make them hate the Irani govt with SUCH a passion. If Iranis who have personally been hurt by the Khomeini regime (kicked out intellectuals, elite class whose homes were burned down, Shahs family kicked out, discrimination on basis of religiosity or gender etc) complained, THEN that would be legit. But for people to hate blindly ? Most people dont have a single clue about what Irans internal policies are. It takes quite a bit of research to know that there are QUITE a few good things Ahmadinejad did for his own country, unfortunately there are also some big major bad things he does in terms of infringement of personal freedoms. That does not change the fact that Irani govt strengthened the Irani economy, led the country through a long war, and did redistribute the totally unequal distribution of wealth, increased literacy and college graduation, and reduced prostitution and abortions. I guess those things count for nothing though, because they are evil barbarians.... And yes Dulce Luna is right my point is consistency, I just want to know why the US is being hypocritical in its foreign policy and why not admit it does not want a true political alliance with any Arab or ME country, only wants to use one against the other for political benefit ? Just admit it, thats all I ask. Hey Arab countries use each other for that same purpose, but at least admit US does that and dont pretend we are some angels that are 100% moral and every war we've entered has only been for moral causes. IP: Logged |
BornUnderDioscuri
Moderator Posts: 49
From:
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted January 01, 2007 03:01 PM
quote:
p.s.:yeah , i would like to know why doesn't iran have a right to go nuclear?
I dont know if anyone said it doesnt but im actually not one of the people who thinks that. For the sake of fairness if you read the thread about Nuclear Power im a strong believer that Mutually Assured Destruction is what keeps peace in the nuclear age. quote:
And yes Dulce Luna is right my point is consistency, I just want to know why the US is being hypocritical in its foreign policy and why not admit it does not want a true political alliance with any Arab or ME country, only wants to use one against the other for political benefit ? Just admit it, thats all I ask.
I personally dont deny it...but thats life is it not? Someone's always getting the short end of the stick, its sad and unfair and wrong but thats life. quote:
Hey Arab countries use each other for that same purpose, but at least admit US does that and dont pretend we are some angels that are 100% moral and every war we've entered has only been for moral causes.
Who the heck ever said we are 100% moral lol. That would be rather self righteous...we are quite immoral...just like EVERYONE else.. IP: Logged |
Dulce Luna
Newflake Posts: 7
From: The Asylum, NC
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted January 01, 2007 03:24 PM
You know, RG has a good point. The U.S. is starting to remind me of some sort of Neo-Roman empire. Dominating everyone and telling them what to do. IP: Logged |
BornUnderDioscuri
Moderator Posts: 49
From:
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted January 01, 2007 03:42 PM
Dulce i thought of that a long time ago...though i have to be honest a part of me doesnt think too poorly of the Roman or Ottoman empires because it was so good to live in them. I dont know perhaps Id agree with you if i lived elsewhere. IP: Logged |
Dulce Luna
Newflake Posts: 7
From: The Asylum, NC
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted January 01, 2007 05:06 PM
Yeah, but if you were part of their "spoils of war" you definitely didn't benefit...kind of like now. IP: Logged |
BornUnderDioscuri
Moderator Posts: 49
From:
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted January 01, 2007 10:15 PM
Hmm i dont know about that...Both Rome and the Ottoman empire annexed the states into the empire and then provided them with various benefits for being territories. Esp Ottomans. So perhaps being spoils of war wasnt that bad (im not talking about plundering of houses etc) IP: Logged |
cancerrg
unregistered
|
posted January 02, 2007 06:31 AM
::  .s.:yeah , i would like to know why doesn't iran have a right to go nuclear?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I dont know if anyone said it doesnt but im actually not one of the people who thinks that. For the sake of fairness if you read the thread about Nuclear Power im a strong believer that Mutually Assured Destruction is what keeps peace in the nuclear age. :::: give me some time ,i'll try searching it (i must admit , i am real bad at it , i am still searching one of day's thread ) there was something like , what if iran goes nuclear , it being a rogue state !
::: And many Arabs think that the trial was just a 'show' that thinks are being done in a civil court, when the US had every intention to get him hung as soon as possible no matter what.:::
let me assure you , its not only the arabs (and not only muslims )who think so . IP: Logged |
BornUnderDioscuri
Moderator Posts: 49
From:
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted January 02, 2007 02:13 PM
True i mean there are varied opinions among everyone. Some think it was just for show (actually I do too myself) but I also think it was done by the Iraqi judges with accordance to Iraqi war. I feel that US pressured them to get a verdict and carry it out, not what the verdict should be which is a big difference. I dont know a part of me feels that he should have been tried in the ICC i mean thats what it was made for. IP: Logged | |
Lindaland
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
