Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Deeds

Saddam Hussein Executed In Iraq

Recommended Posts

PropellerAds
but as Muslims we should leave the final abode of Saddam Hussein to Allah.

 

This is kinda funny. Im not talking about you specifically but why are the same muslims who usually make takfir on hamid karzai, kemal ataturk, and other muslims who fight on behalf on the united states, but when it comes to saddam (a far worse individual) everyone says I dont know. I sense a bias here.

 

Salam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace

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

Of course I heard them! Pretty much the same as I heard he killed millions, he was rapist. I also heard that he was using chemical weapons on whole kurdish towns, mercilessly killing women and children, brutally opressing all the shiahs of Iraq, using his secret police to torture and kill Random kurds, shiahs and sometimes even sunnis in order to keep the population scared.

 

I also heard that he imprisoned and tortured hundreds of thousands of human beings, raped their wives in front of their children, and gave them acid baths.

 

Then I heard that 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.

 

If I was a lawyer, I needed to scrutinize what you've heard, don't I?

 

This is kinda funny. Im not talking about you specifically but why are the same muslims who usually make takfir on hamid karzai, kemal ataturk, and other muslims who fight on behalf on the united states, but when it comes to saddam (a far worse individual) everyone says I dont know. I sense a bias here.
It's because people changed ... Saddam changed... We judge people based on the their most recent lives, not only on his past. So, it's not relevant to argue that he used to work with the US ...

 

You can't prove it to the standards you apply to saddam.

And what do you mean by that?

 

Wassalam,

Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's because people changed ... Saddam changed... We judge people based on the their most recent lives, not only on his past. So, it's not relevant to argue that he used to work with the US ...

 

This makes absolutely no sense to me. It really seems like you are grasping at straws now, Yasnov.

 

A sign of Saddam changing would have been some kind of repentance, some kind of recognition of his crimes. This didn't happen.

 

If a man kills 50 people and five years later, he's helping old ladies cross the street, does that somehow make his past irrelevant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This makes absolutely no sense to me. It really seems like you are grasping at straws now, Yasnov.

A sign of Saddam changing would have been some kind of repentance, some kind of recognition of his crimes. This didn't happen.

Repentance! ... like if he proclaimed to the world that he was guilty of supressing the insurgents and that his secret police were committing nasty things the world would forgive him and he would be clean. One thing is clear ... he asked his nurse one day, Robert Ellis, why did the US invade my country? You know what does that mean and how far the implication is?

 

If a man kills 50 people and five years later, he's helping old ladies cross the street, does that somehow make his past irrelevant?

In worldly context it is still relevant. But it's different if you view it from religious perspective. As for apologies for killing 50 people, you need to apologize to those dead 50 people because they are the ones to decide whether or not to forgive the killers. You don't ask forgiveness from their relatives to reduce your sins, do you? What do you think?

 

Wassalam,

Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How innocent and cute Kurds are ... If they can go this far ... who knew what they might have done in the past with their insurgency? With all the cries and tears?

 

Report: Former IDF commandos secretly trained Kurdish soldiers

(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 yethaaretz(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/hasen/spages/765068.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yethaaretz(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/hasen/spages/765068.html[/url]

 

israelis trained Kurds in Iraq

(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 yetynetnews(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/articles/0,7340,L-3177712,00.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetynetnews(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/articles/0,7340,L-3177712,00.html[/url]

 

Kurdish soldiers trained by israelis

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/5363116.stm"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/5363116.stm[/url]

 

Wassalam,

Yasnov

Edited by Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace

 

Yes, israelis trained kurds in Iraq...so? The Kurds want a separate state, and that does not give saddam the right to gas indiscriminately, killing women and children. He has killed hundreds of thousands of kurds. Its inexcusable. For example, just because many muslims want a shariah state in france, UK, etc , does not give the governments there the right to kill whole muslim communities indiscriminately. Understand?

 

And BTW, Saddam never publicly repented...and if he did , it certainly was after he was captured, when he obviously knew he's gonna get killed.

 

Salaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, israelis trained kurds in Iraq...so? The Kurds want a separate state, and that does not give saddam the right to gas indiscriminately

The matter is that there have been many reports (with photos and videos) from many sources stating that the Kurds were trained by the israelis. But still the Kurds deny it (if you even read the news). It means they are lying. If they can lie bout this obvious facts, why didn't they lie (or at least made exaggeration) in the past to help their cause in getting the world's attention?

 

With this being said, I didn't intend to say that Saddam had treated them very nicely. The news coverage about this is just not proportional.

 

and that does not give saddam the right to gas indiscriminately, killing women and childre

I'm not sure if it is deliberately, are you?

 

Wassalam,

Yasnov

Edited by Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace

not deliberately? Yeah ...right.

Salaams

I can't be blamed for demanding proofs, can I? Btw, what gas do you think being used by Saddam?

 

Wassalam,

Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace

 

Btw, what gas do you think being used by Saddam?

 

Umm...the one supplied to him by America.....obviously. Also do you deny that he invaded another muslim country (kuweit) resulting in thousands of deaths?

 

Salaams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Umm...the one supplied to him by America.....obviously.

It's mustard gas, right?

 

Also do you deny that he invaded another muslim country (kuweit) resulting in thousands of deaths?Salaams

That is one of the facts that I never want to deny. Coz I'm here not to make him look any good, but to tone down some baseless exaggerations and lies against him as he can't answer all of the accusations now .. for some people all bad rumours about him must be true, because Saddam is bad ... even if there goes a rumor that Saddam had farted and it killed millions of his citizens... the same people would believe it as truth simply because he's been labeled as bad guy. No need to ask for sources, no need to do their own research or check and recheck all information bout him.

 

Wassalam,

Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace

 

No need to ask for sources, no need to do their own research or check and recheck all information bout him.

 

Wait a minute, I cant believe my eyes. Maybe I am misunderstanding you.... Are you saying that Saddam's invasion of Kuweit never happened? Are you seriously this ignorant?

 

It's funny that I finally brought the Kuwait invasion to the discussion and you so cleverly dance around the issue. Answer the question, did he or didnt he invade kuweit?

 

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

 

A non-muslim killing innocent muslims is a kaafir.

 

But a "muslim" funded and allied with the kufaar KILLING innocent muslims is a MUNAFIQ

 

MUNAFIQ = WORSE THAN KAAFIR

 

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?

I love you brother, and i agree 200%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace

Wait a minute, I cant believe my eyes. Maybe I am misunderstanding you.... Are you saying that Saddam's invasion of Kuweit never happened? Are you seriously this ignorant?

I assumed you didn't read this text that I wrote: That is one of the facts that I never want to deny

 

It's funny that I finally brought the Kuwait invasion to the discussion and you so cleverly dance around the issue.

Did I?

 

Wassalam,

Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Web of Deceit : Saddam Hussein - The Trial You'll Never See

 

Made for European television this film was never broadcast in North America. This is a must watch Video - A Barry Lando and Michel Despratx documentary .

 

The horrifying truth is the extent to which we in the west have been complicit.

(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 yetinformationclearinghouse.io/article17053.htm"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetinformationclearinghouse.i

fo/article17053.htm[/url]

 

Wassalam,

Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace

 

 

and you're saying this is news, Yasnov?

 

Everybody with half a brain knows that the trial and execution was orchestrated by the americans from behind the scenes.....

 

salaams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's for archives and for those who still don't know.

 

Wassalam,

Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Report Suppressed: Iran Gassed Kurds, Not Iraq

 

US Army War College (USAWC) undertook a study of the use of chemical weapons by Iran and Iraq in order to better understand battlefield chemical warfare. They concluded that it was Iran and not Iraq that killed the Kurds.

(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 yetthe7thfire(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/Politics%20and%20History/GaseousLies.htm"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetthe7thfire(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/Politics%20and%2...GaseousLies.htm[/url]

 

===

 

FLASHBACK: Saddam never gassed his own people

 

A Stephen C. Pelletiere commentary appeared in the January 31, 2003 New York Times, yet no one seems to have noticed. Here is part of what he wrote about frequent statements that Saddam Hussein gassed 5000 Kurds at Halabja in 1988:

The story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

 

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent -- that is, a cyanide-based gas -- which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

 

These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.

(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 yetg2mil(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/Dec2003.htm"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetg2mil(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/Dec2003.htm[/url]

 

===

 

Ex CIA Analyst: Saddam Did Not Gas The Kurds ! Video

 

SADDAM HUSSEIN DID NOT GAS THE KURDS. . . Nor did Iraqi soldiers pull babies out of incubators in Kuwait, as the Zionist-controlled media proclaimed in order to promote the first Gulf War. That was later exposed and admitted to be a story cooked up by the ad agency hired to arouse American's support for a war thousands of miles from our borders with a country which leader never made a threat against America. They just wanted U.S. soldiers to "go get that evil mad-man" and if a few hundred thousand innocent Iraqi's die in the process. . . so what?

(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 yeturuknet.de/?p=m31151&hd=&size=1&l=e"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yeturuknet.de/?p=m31151&hd=&size=1&l=e[/url]

 

===

 

FLASHBACK: What Happened in Kurdish Halabja?

 

The truth of what happened in Halabja had always been hidden from the public, and many who knew exactly what happened in this Kurdish village in the second half of March 1988 disputed the western media coverage of the story. It is a fact that key Kurdish leaders aided by the CIA and the israeli Mossad have used a wide network of public relations companies and media outlets in the west to manipulate and twist the truth of what happened in Kurdish Halabja in 1988 in favour of the Kurdish political parties.

 

Pelletiere's report also said that international relief organisations that examined the Kurdish refugees in Turkey failed to discover any gassing victims. After 15 years of support to the allegations of HRW, the CIA finally admitted in its report published in October 2003 that only mustard gas and a nerve agent was used by Iraq. The CIA now seems to be fully supporting the US Army War College report of April 1990, as a cyanide-based blood agent that Iraq never had, and not mustard gas or a nerve agent, killed the Kurds who died at Halabja and which concludes that the Iranians perpetrated that attack as a media war tactic.

(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 yetglobalpolicy(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/security/issues/iraq/saddam/2004/1222halabja.htm"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetglobalpolicy(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/security/issue...1222halabja.htm[/url]

 

===

 

FLASHBACK: What Happened at Halabja?

 

First of all, remember the Iran/Iraq war began at the end of 1980. By March 16, 1988, several hundred thousand soldiers had died in the conflict. Iran, with 60 million people, was supposed to be able to defeat Iraq, with 20 million. But Saddam Hussein proved to be superior to the Ayatollah Khomeni in organizing resources. Historians now agree that by the end of 1987, the advantage had shifted to Iraq. The Iranians had in desperation thrown "human waves" of soldiers against Iraq, and Iraq had used mustard gas to turn that tide. They have acknowledged this use. In early 1988, Iraq was using Scud missiles to hit Teheran, and the Iranian government was reeling.

 

From day one, the Iraqi government insisted it had nothing to do with any poison gas being used on its own nationals, not even accidentally in attacks on the Iranian adversaries. The defense ministry said it would be ridiculous for them to use poison gas in the town when their forces were going in the direction of the Iranian retreat. The Army War College did conduct an inquiry soon thereafter and in April 1990 concluded that both Iran and Iraq had used gas in their warring exchanges, but that the horrible deaths at Halabja were almost certainly the result of gas in the Iranian inventory, gas not available to the Iraqis. You must admit, David, that Jeffrey Goldberg never even mentioned this report. The War College report had been widely reported in April 1990 and the principal author, Dr. Stephen Pelletiere, to this day insists that if there were citizens killed by Iraqi gas at Halabja, it was collateral in the Iraqi engagement with the Iranian army. His report says Iraq used gas, but he says he got this from the Defense Intelligence Administration and it may or may not be true.

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_wanniski(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/showarticle.asp?articleid=1967"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_wanniski(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/showarticle.asp?articleid=1967[/url]

 

Wassalam,

Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My two bits:

Saddam was a disgraceful, murderous Tyrant whose only saving grace (if such a term can be used) is that he held the traditionally fractious Iraqi state together. In my view, he more than deserved a death sentence. However, killing him on Eid day was a terrible thing to do, and I do not believe for an instance that it was not a deliberate message to the Muslim world. To put it in perspective, it is as if a muslim country invaded the UK and executed Tony Blair for War Crimes on Easter, or on Christmas Eve. It would be like killing Ariel Sharon on Yom Kippur.

Saddam's later actions, such as supporting Palestine and taking on Islamic trappings was only a cynical ploy to gain broader support. It failed for the most part. Please refrain from glorifying tyrants simply because they oppose the USA. The USA is not evil incarnate and neither are those who seem to oppose the USA angels. This includes Kim Jong Il, Ahmedinejad and Hugo Chavez.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

West Has Bloodied Hands

 

Who was the first high government official to authorize use of mustard gas against rebellious Kurdish tribesmen in Iraq? If your answer was Saddam Hussein's cousin, the notorious "Chemical Ali" -- aka Ali Hassan al-Majid -- you're wrong.

(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 yetinformationclearinghouse.ifo/article17461.htm"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetinformationclearinghouse.i

fo/article17461.htm[/url]

(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 yetcanoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Eric_Margolis/2004/12/19/790077.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetcanoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/T.../19/790077.html[/url]

 

Wassalam,

Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace,

 

That's both misleading and incorrect at the same time. Firstly the British did not use gas of any kind on the Kurds which is implied by the comparison with 'Chemical Ali' and an article entitled, 'West has Bloodied Hands'. Secondly Churchill did not 'authorise' the use of gas because he was in no position at that time to do so. The sole basis for that claim comes from a personal letter he wrote to a friend in 1916 featured in full below:

 

I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gases: gases can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected... We cannot, in any circumstances acquiesce to the non-utilisation of any weapons which are available to procure a speedy termination of the disorder which prevails on the frontier.
(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikiquote(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Sir_Winston_Churchill"]Wikiquote- Winston Churchill[/url]

 

Churchill did not 'authorise' anything. Were his views to prove flawed? Yes. Is there any degree of moral equivolence between an out of office politician in 1916 saying in a personal letter to a friend that he didn't see a problem with gas being used to quell riots and an acting military commander actually using nerve agents to ethnically cleanse vast swathes of a country in 1988? Absolutely not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam,

 

Peace,

That's both misleading and incorrect at the same time. Firstly the British did not use gas of any kind on the Kurds which is implied by the comparison with 'Chemical Ali' and an article entitled, 'West has Bloodied Hands'.

As for the title made by the writer, I think it is Pars pro toto, taking a part for the whole.

 

Secondly Churchill did not 'authorise' the use of gas because he was in no position at that time to do so. The sole basis for that claim comes from a personal letter he wrote to a friend in 1916 featured in full below:
No, it was not a personal letter to a friend in 1916, but statement as president of the Air Council, War Office Departmental Minute in 1919 (1919-05-12)

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikiquote(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Sir_Winston_Churchill"]Wikiquote- Winston Churchill[/url]

Churchill did not 'authorise' anything. Were his views to prove flawed? Yes. Is there any degree of moral equivolence between an out of office politician in 1916 saying in a personal letter to a friend that he didn't see a problem with gas being used to quell riots and an acting military commander actually using nerve agents to ethnically cleanse vast swathes of a country in 1988? Absolutely not.

Henry Gonzalez, US Congressman, referred to his statement in the House of Representatives on March 24, 1992:

 

"But there again, where is the moral right? The first one to use gas against Arabs was Winston Churchill, the British, in the early 1920's. They were Iraq Arabs they used them against." (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 yetfas(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/spp/starwars/congress/1992/h920324g.htm"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetfas(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/spp/starwars/congress/1992/h920324g.htm[/url]

 

Wassalam,

Yasnov

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


×