Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Deeds

Saddam Hussein Executed In Iraq

Recommended Posts

PropellerAds
Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

Pelletiere says the number of dead was in the hundreds, not the thousands claimed by Human Rights Watch and the U.S. administration. To this day, the CIA concurs.[4] While the War College report acknowledges that Iraq used mustard gas during the Halabja hostilities, it notes that mustard gas is an incapacitating, rather than a killing, agent, with a fatality rate of only two percent, so that it could not have killed the hundreds of known dead, much less the thousands of dead claimed by Human Rights Watch.[5]

 

Pelletiere also rejects the larger claim that, aside from whatever happened at Halabja, Saddam Hussein engaged in a months-long campaign of genocide against Iraqi Kurds that killed 50,000, 100,000, or more. Calling this is a "hoax, a non-event,"[7] he explains that:

"This one is extremely problematical since no gassing victims were ever produced. The only evidence that gas was used is the eye-witness testimony of the Kurds who fled to Turkey, collected by staffers of the U.S. Senate. We showed this testimony to experts in the military who told us it was worthless. The symptoms described by the Kurds do not conform to any known chemical or combination of chemicals."[8]

 

Pelletiere also says that international relief organizations who examined the Kurdish refugees in Turkey failed to discover any gassing victims.[9]

 

"From what I saw, I would conclude that if lethal gas was used, it was not used genocidally--that is, for mass killing. The Kurds compose a fifth of the Iraqi population, and they are a tightly knit community. If there had been large-scale killing, it is likely they would know and tell the world. But neither I nor any Westerner I encountered heard such allegations.

Nor did Kurdish society show discernible signs of tension. The northern cities, where the men wear Kurdish turbans and baggy pants, were as bustling as I had ever seen them."

 

Crucially, Viorst reported that:

"Journalists visiting the Turkish camps saw refugees with blistered skin and irritated eyes, symptoms of gassing. But doctors sent by France, the United Nations and the Red Cross have said these symptoms could have been produced by a powerful, but non-lethal tear gas."[10]

In his 1994 book "Sandcastles," Viorst added to his account:

"On returning home, I interviewed academic experts; none unequivocally ruled out the use of gas, but the most reliable among them were doubtful. It was only Washington, and particularly Congress--although, conspicuously, not the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, which was in the best position to know--that stuck stubbornly to the original story, and this persistence bewildered the Iraqis."[11]

 

A third dissenting voice, oddly enough, is the CIA. Its October 2002 dossier, "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs," identifies only 10 instances of reported Iraqi use of chemical weapons, and none of these were directed specifically at the Kurds. All occurred during the Iran-Iraq war; seven were directed only against Iranians, and in three cases, including Halabja, the victims included both Iranians and Kurds, thus supporting Iraq's contention that it used mustard gas only in military operations against Iran.[12]

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetmediamonitors(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/robinmiller10.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetmediamonitors(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/robinmiller10.html[/url]

 

Wassalam,

Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pelletiere was the senior political analyst for the Iraq-Iran war for the CIA. He conducted a DIA analysis that resulted in the conclusions that you provide above. More reputable studied done since then have found his study to be in serious error.

 

Mustard Gas was not the only chemical agent used.

 

Human Rights Watch has compiled hundreds of eyewitness accounts and official documents, further showing the DIA report to be mistaken.

 

I found the above info at Wikipedia.

 

As the US backed Saddam during the war, it makes sense that initial studies showed Iran to be responsible, or atleast tried to dumb down the massacre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pelletiere was the senior political analyst for the Iraq-Iran war for the CIA. He conducted a DIA analysis that resulted in the conclusions that you provide above. More reputable studied done since then have found his study to be in serious error.

 

Mustard Gas was not the only chemical agent used.

 

Human Rights Watch has compiled hundreds of eyewitness accounts and official documents, further showing the DIA report to be mistaken.

 

I found the above info at Wikipedia.

 

As the US backed Saddam during the war, it makes sense that initial studies showed Iran to be responsible, or atleast tried to dumb down the massacre.

 

Without any single link or reference for any refutation you make, Russ? Please show me links that support anything you said above

 

Wassalam,

Yasnov

Edited by Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace

 

this incident was just one of many. During Saddam's brutal SECULAR dictatorship there was massive opression especially of the kurds, with many thousands being tortured and killed by the secret police. I was watching a report on Al-Jazeera where a kurdish man returned from exile in britain after the invasion and visited his family/friends/neighbours in the city of Kirkuk and man everybody there had a horror story.

 

I cant believe that you , Yasnov would be so incredibly gullible to doubt (you seem to) as to the brutality of saddam and his regime. He has killed hundreds of thousands......that is a well known undisputable fact.

 

Salaams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there was so much proof, how come they failed to produce any in the trial? All they had were contradicting witnesses who seem to remember the exact minute that the attack happend but fail to recall what the attakers were wearing (Iraqi, Iranian or Kurdish military cloths!!!).

 

Sad to see my fellow muslims so delluded as to support such an evil anti-islamic murderous devil like Saddam.

 

 

I pity you

Sad to see fellow muslims so delluded as to believe what the west has to say without even considering the other side of the story.

 

I pity you

 

 

During Saddam's brutal SECULAR dictatorship there was massive opression especially of the kurds, with many thousands being tortured and killed by the secret police.

 

Are you bashmarga by any chance?

 

 

 

:sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont pity anyone...

 

According to UN, since Saddam came to power till now there has been approx. 2 MILLION drop in population..

 

Go ask nearly any shia brother/sister and they will tell u how many of their family members have been killed by Saddam.

 

GO ask the kurds, and even many sunnis.

 

OFFICIAL documents have been found that saddam has personally signed for the execution of people. For the reason that they were paying their respects to the grave of the Grandson of the Beloved of Allah(sawa) too often... and for not respecting the baathist agents on the street/bazaar.

 

How could you defend a puppet of the west?

The Lanat of Allah(swt) is on such a man.

 

Btw yasnov that post b4 u did not refute any of my post, u just quoted me followed by silly questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whatever Saddam did, (as he said) it was during a ruling country and he did what he supposedly had to do, either right or wrong...-just as what bush is doing now-

the important issue here is that he was executed on the day of Muslim's Bairam during which we slaughter animals. what they meant was "see, you slaughter animals we slaughter a Muslim during your holy day!"this is not accaptable in any way!

 

and if it wasn't Kurds and Shia's revenge, then why did the executors clap, sing and dance AND hit Saddam right after the execution???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Without any single link or reference for any refutation you make, Russ? Please show me links that support anything you said above

 

That's all you have to say? I told you where the info was; I didn't give a link because it wasn't working at the time.

 

And now, since you don't have the lack of a link as an excuse, will you address the info I give, or will you find another excuse to ignore it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Salam alikum

 

May Allah SWT grant him Jannatul ferdawos insha Allah

 

Salam alikum

Ameen

 

They didn't even let him finish the shahada, Astaghfirullah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace

 

 

This thread makes my blood boil. I am angered at those muslims who show utter disrespect for their brothers and sisters who have been slaughtered by this man' SECULAR, UNISLAMIC BAATHIST REGIME. Whenever you praise this Once-western tyrant puppet, you spit upon their memory and it is a mockery of Islam. Who are you going to praise next? Hamid Karzai?

 

 

And nice way of dodging the issue with "are you bashmarga by any chance" ? No....I dont even know what that is...

 

 

Salaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And sister Mahawi....hearing you talk about how there's "no proof" reminds me of those who say similar things about Bin Laden, the Taleban etc.........and this is so much more obvious than those cases.

 

There is immense proof that saddam and his regime have commited crimes against humanity, are you telling me your so blatantly ignorant as to disagree with so much proof?

 

Salaams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bro Yasnov....can you please answer me this.

 

 

Are you really going to consider Saddam as a possible (or certain, as some people believe he is) martyr for Islam and elligible for heaven? Take the following into consideration:

 

Saddam saw himself as a social revolutionary and a modernizer, following the Nasser model. To the consternation of Islamic conservatives, his government gave women added freedoms and offered them high-level government and industry jobs. Saddam also created a Western-style legal system, making Iraq the only country in the Persian Gulf region not ruled according to traditional Islamic law (Sharia). Saddam abolished the Sharia law courts, except for personal injury claims.
Source: Saddam's WIKIPEDIA Page

 

HE WAS A SECULAR NON-RELIGIOUS LEADER. HOW COULD HE POSSIBLY BE A MARTYR FOR Islam?

 

 

 

 

also this following (also taken from wikipedia) was particularly funny:

 

In the first days of the war, there was heavy ground fighting around strategic ports as Iraq launched an attack on Khuzestan. After making some initial gains, Iraq's troops began to suffer losses from human wave attacks by Iran. By 1982, Iraq was on the defensive and looking for ways to end the war. At this point, Saddam asked his ministers for candid advice. Health Minister Riyadh Ibrahim suggested that Saddam temporarily step down to promote peace negotiations. Ibrahim’s chopped up body was delivered to his wife the next day

 

What a Joker...haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yasnov, check out the list "10 things which nullify one's Islam" here: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=23553&st=0"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=23553&st=0[/url]

 

 

Saddam clearly violated 4, 6, and 8

 

 

 

So if he is an apostate as it clearly seems to be the case how can he be a martyr? Also keep in mind the doors of forgiveness are closed once one sees his imminent death.

 

What other excuses do people have now for supporting the evil saddam?

 

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace

this incident was just one of many. During Saddam's brutal SECULAR dictatorship there was massive opression especially of the kurds, with many thousands being tortured and killed by the secret police.

You don’t need to capitalize the word secular there to make a point. :sl: :sl: It really doesn’t matter if he is a secular, or communist or atheist. I am just being realistic and fair. Even if the butcher from the America - Bush – is accused of something which is not true, like he is being accused of being gay by his own citizen, someone from democrat party, and I know he is not, I’ll try to correct the false information. If it is truth then it is truth, just say it like it is. His background does not matter. His being a butcher of the America should not be an excuse for not telling the the real fact, the reality.

 

 

I was watching a report on Al-Jazeera where a kurdish man returned from exile in britain after the invasion and visited his family/friends/neighbours in the city of Kirkuk and man everybody there had a horror story.
It is my habit not to listen only to one side of the story. And I don’t just watch and trust everything being aired by TV even if it is A-Jazeera. People who are interviewed to give his life experiences on TV, magazines, tabloids tend to exaggererate things. I never take a report like this very seriously. Because even in this forum, I can find many Iraqis, even they are shia themselves, that say that most of the news they read on media about Saddam are false, untrue. And what benefits do they get for lying about this? And let’s compare it to the Kurdish man that you watch on Al-Jazeera, it could be that his hatred and resentment and gruge make him tell more than what he should bout his enemy, I meant lying or exxageration.

 

I cant believe that you , Yasnov would be so incredibly gullible to doubt (you seem to) as to the brutality of saddam and his regime. He has killed hundreds of thousands......that is a well known undisputable fact.

If we want to have a fair conclusion when judging Saddam, we have to take into account all of the events occuring starting from 1931 until 2006. We can’t just take the darkest episode of Saddam lives, and then label him unfairly based only on that one piece of puzzle. The kurds rebel leaders are not better than Saddam. They started attacking the Iraqi govt in 1931 with armed forces and later with the support from the US while the Iraqi govt has tried to negotiate with them often times. They are even treated better than the rest of the Iraqis that they’ve been given full autonomy and other special treatment and that they’ve also been asked for negotiations and dialogues. Why don’t just these Kurds assimilate with the rest of the Iraqis people? So, when rebellious Kurds and legitimate Iraqi government are fighting and trying to kill each other, you cannot simply blame one side because it is the side that caused more victims. They are killing each other, that’s the truth. That why it is called insurgency; and they had armed militia. This is the part that is often omitted by media. They just said kurds, kurds and kurds and miss out the rebel armed militia parts… which give an image that Saddam was intentionally or without any sensible reason attacking the innocent Kurds.

 

The Kurd rebel leaders have been fighting against the legitimate Iraqi govt for decades, and it’s only recently that they were put in “powerâ€, but let’s see what these Kurd rebel leaders doing for their own people … so much fighting and insurgencies for the sake and interests of the whole Kurds people?

 

Bloodline instead of merit: The Talabanis

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetkurdmedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/articles.asp?id=13857"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetkurdmedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/articles.asp?id=13857[/url]

 

That's all you have to say? I told you where the info was; I didn't give a link because it wasn't working at the time.

And now, since you don't have the lack of a link as an excuse, will you address the info I give, or will you find another excuse to ignore it?

I've tried to find the info in Wikipedia, but I failed. Now will you help me, please?

 

Wassalam,

Yasnov

Edited by Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wo surprising o see how muslims are supporting a killer?who are we kidding? Islam?

salam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don’t need to capitalize the word secular there to make a point. It really doesn’t matter if he is a secular, or communist or atheist. I am just being realistic and fair. Even if the butcher from the America - Bush – is accused of something which is not true, like he is being accused of being gay by his own citizen, someone from democrat party, and I know he is not, I’ll try to correct the false information. If it is truth then it is truth, just say it like it is. His background does not matter. His being a butcher of the America should not be an excuse for not telling the the real fact, the reality.

 

Yawn....how come you don't demand the same amount of proof for Bush yasnov?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"which give an image that Saddam was intentionally or without any sensible reason attacking the innocent Kurds."

 

Using chemical weapons on whole kurdish towns, mercilessly killing women and children, brutally opressing all the shiahs of Iraq, using your secret police to torture and kill Random kurds , shiahs and sometimes even sunnis in order to keep the population scared is hardly a "islamic" leader. Do you think that The Prophet(pbuh) muhammad or any of the rightly guided caliphs would kill , imprison and torture hundreds of thousands of human beings, rape their wives in front of their children, and give them acid baths?

 

 

Im sorry but whenever anyone says this tyrant was Islamic, my blood boils because I regard it as an insult to the true muslim leaders of the past.

 

Have we become so desperate as to support such a bloody tyrant just for the mere fact that (during the end of his reign) he turned against his western masters? (if history is to be taken into account, he definately didnt do it for Islam)

 

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:sl:

 

May Allah have mercy upon his soul and forgive him for his sins. No one denies that what he did was very wrong, but he's a Muslim after all, so long as he prays towards the Qiblah, we consider him a Muslim. And none of us know whether he repented sincerely to Allah or not. Allah forgives all sins so long as a Muslim repents for them. After all, there's the story of the man who killed 99 people, but Allah still forgave him after he repented. We don't know what it's going on in the minds of others, so it's not for us to judge.

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetislamonline(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1165994402675&pagename=Zone-English-Muslim_Affairs%2FMAELayout"]Why Arabs Are Angry[/url]

 

(IslamOnline)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace

 

so long as he prays towards the Qiblah, we consider him a Muslim.

 

 

Oh really? Really? You haven't read the "10 things while invalidate one's Islam" have you? No, a muslims is not just one who prays towards the qiblah once in a while, there are many more conditions to be met!

 

As ive shown before, he clearly violated at least 2 or 3 of the 10 things, so how can he be a muslim. He NEVER REPENTED DURING HIS LIFE. He never said he was sorry. And he prayed seconds before he was killed but as you well know (or should know) , once a person sees imminent death , his repentance will NOT be accepted.

 

 

Salaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are we doing here? Shall we only repeat what we hear out there, or are we going to bring clear evidence for everything we said in this thread? If it is the first, then I'll rest my case.

 

AL-HUJURAT: 6

 

O YOU who have attained to faith! If any iniquitous person comes to you with a [slanderous] tale, use your discernment, (5) lest you hurt people unwittingly and afterwards be filled with remorse for what you have done. (6)

 

NOTE:

 

5 - I.e., verify the truth before giving credence to any such report or rumour. The tale-bearer is characterized as iniquitous because the very act of spreading unsubstantiated rumours affecting the reputation of other persons constitutes a spiritual offence.

 

6 - Thus, after laying stress in the preceding verses on the reverence due to God's message- bearer - and, by implication, to every righteous leader of the community - the discourse turns to the moral imperative of safeguarding the honour and reputation of every member of the community, man and woman alike. This principle is taken up, more explicitly, in verse 12.

 

Yawn....how come you don't demand the same amount of proof for Bush yasnov?

As if the fact that 650,000 Iraqis have died is being disputed?

 

Wassalam,

Yasnov

Edited by Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you really going to consider Saddam as a possible (or certain, as some people believe he is) martyr for Islam and elligible for heaven? Take the following into consideration:

 

HE WAS A SECULAR NON-RELIGIOUS LEADER. HOW COULD HE POSSIBLY BE A MARTYR FOR Islam?

 

Brother it's true that he was a secular non-religious leader but what we don't know he changed after after his capture. If he did, good for him but if he didn't then he's a fool for sure.

 

Another thing, there's no Double Jeopardy in Islam. We have strict punishments in this world so that one doesn't have face punishments in the hereafter. The punishments in the hereafter will b much tougher. Saddam went thru his punishments in this world, so does he not have a clean slate now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace

 

As if the fact that 650,000 Iraqis have died is being disputed?

 

As terrible as that figure is, remember, Saddam killed at least that many. Ever heard of secret police detaining random people and they are never seen again?

 

Salaams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:sl: and Peace

 

I can understand non Muslims saying whatever they want... but as Muslims we should leave the final abode of Saddam Hussein to Allah. Only Allah knows whether ANYONE is going to Jannah or Jahannam.

 

:sl:

Share this post


Link to post
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


×