I debated with myself and was unable to pick a side. Hence posting my thoughts after 6 pages and am still undecided.
1) Saddam was ruthless to Shi-ites. He deserved severe punishment - a death sentence.
2) Any form and supporter of terrorism needs to be extracted from the society and he surely was an anti-social element that should have been iradicated at some point.
However,
1) Iraq was not involved in 9/11 as US claimed before attacking Iraq - not a very human action
2) During the Iran Iraq war, US empowered Saddam, and parallely created Taliban during the cold war, which recently came around and bit us from behind 🤢.
Rise of Saddam and resultant torture of Shiites in Iraq was initially supported by who? What punishment do the rest get?
3) If it was a war against terrrorism and since Saddam was a monster, one could have either shot him down / tortured him slowly to death, why the trial in the first place?
4) He did not deserve a trial. I couldn't care lesser if it was an biassed / unbiassed trial, because for treating a terrorist, nothing in unfair. Yet, he was legally given a death sentence - death by hanging.
In that case, what I do not support is
a) his execution to be video-taped.
b) his last words to be mocked at / ridiculed.
c) the sentencing guards ill-treating the dying man
Such behaviour adds oil to the fire. They may be handful, but Saddam had avid supporters. Such acts make worse and stronger terrorists out of those who worship him. We cannot hunt down each one of them. It is not about what he deserved. It is about what the living people people deserve in our future. We undeniably need no more terrorism than we have now.
mqt
Edited by mermaid_QT - 18 years ago
0