web analytics

The Bells of Saint Clemency

By ATWadmin On December 29th, 2006

Don’t they make you sick to the pit of your stomach?  Whilst the US maintains consistency by welcoming the impending execution of Saddam Hussein, various European governments and individual politicians have reacted with a breathtaking degree of moral pusillanimity.  Take Marco Pannella, of Italy’s Radical Party, as a prime example. He is prepared to participate in a hunger strike over the decision to despatch the former Iraqi leader.


What is it with these people?  Where were types like Pannella when Saddam and the host of other dictators and juntas around the world were killing their own people en masse?  Former Provo lickspittle, John Hume used to say that ‘an eye for an eye left everyone blind’.  That’s all eyewash.  The truth in life is that if you turn the other cheek, your enemy will slap that one as well!!


Saddam is responsible for 2.5 million deaths in Iraq.  It is right, just and proper that he should serve his penance away from this world – a world where the international community would have to pay for his incarceration, and where every day would run the risk of him being sprung from his penitentiary.  Why should others have to shoulder that burden?

31 Responses to “The Bells of Saint Clemency”

  1. This is undoubtedly an evil man nad dererves what is coming to him. I still don’t support the DP. If I beelived that carrying ot our would give an outcome of less innocent people dead as a result, I could feel better about it. I just don’t think that that is how it will pan out.

  2. Dammit, shame *our* bastard Lefties wont follow suit and starve themselves to death en masse. Obviously even a genocidal lunatic like Saddam isnt evil enough for them to get all worked up about – pity we cant exhume Stalin and put him on trial for the famines and gulags – then they could all starve themselves to death on their great mass-murdering idol’s behalf and we’d be rid of them forever.

    How evil do you have to be to defend a creaure like Saddam Hussein? It beggars the imagination.

  3. Lest we forget folks — Saddam is facing the rope purely and simply because Iraq happens to be sitting on a mountain of oil in a strategic area of the Middle East. Not because of his crimes against humanity (which are many) or his WMD (which are none).

    Are we likely to see the US stampeding into Zimbabwe, Burma, Somalia, North Korea or China to string up vile dictators for the genocide of their own people?
    Certainly not. Why? The first three are of no strategic or economic importance and the last two just might fight back.

    I’m as happy as the next guy to see Saddam swing, but let’s remember why it’s him and not the others mentioned above.

  4. couple of points.
    to say hume was a provo lickspittle is the most cretinous comment yet by AmC– he did more than anyone to end the conflict,
    clearly that’s of no concern to satan’s little helper McCann

    Saddam to hang at dawn: officials
    http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-12-30T001308Z_01_IBO034602_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-IRAQ-COL.XML

    by the time most of you awake he’ll be dead; curious how simultaneously St.Gerry has breathed new life and hope for 1000’s by his courage.

  5. HU

    I’m still glad he was deposed and I wish that those other places gcould be rid of their Saddams.

    BTW how was your birthday?

  6. "The truth in life is that if you turn the other cheek, your enemy will slap that one as well!!"

    For someone who seemingly prattles on endlessly over Christianity’s surperiority over any other belief, that’s a jarring statement.

    The Xmas spirit hasn’t lasted long in you!

  7. Saddam has now been executed.

  8. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6218485.stm

  9. The Iraqi people brought him to justice, the Americans are retaining him in custody until the dirty deed is done to ensure that there is no torture beforehand or abuse of the corpse afterward. It’s on the up and up – – he was afforded more than ANY of his victims were ever afforded.

  10. Monica – on Twenty Major :

    <Q> Saddam is dead – say what you like about the Iraqi justice system, they don’t hang around!</Q>

  11. Absolutely agree Aileen but sadly reality ain’t like that. It’s particularly galling to see the west licking up to China as if Tianamen Square never happened. Buy the cheap products, cheer on the Olympics, forget the innocents massacred for daring to demand democracy.

    The birthday went well thanks, apart from the cake setting off the smoke alarms in every house in the street.

  12. ”For someone who seemingly prattles on endlessly over Christianity’s surperiority over any other belief, that’s a jarring statement.”

    Fair comment Jude. Christians like to cover all bases when it comes to recommended behaviour, and it’s particularly fortuitous that the God of the OT is a tyrant and the Jesus of the NT a pacifist. Quotes from both can be wheeled on at will.

  13. Human Animals,

    I’d agree with you that dealing with China is a disgrace, but this nonsense about Iraq all being about oil is ridiculous. The US isnt getting a single drop of extra oil out of this conflict – are you seriously arguing that they have gained more financially from this than they have lost?

    It was the wrong target, and no I didnt think we should be there – Syria, Iran, by all means. Iraq, no. But I cant help the sincere and certain feeling that the Left would be screaming blue murder at the idea of tackling ANY mass-murdering genocidal dictatorship if its leaders and people had skin on the darker side of pale. Insane, but nonetheless true.

  14. >>>The US isnt getting a single drop of extra oil out of this conflict – are you seriously arguing that they have gained more financially from this than they have lost?<<<

    LOL. do a search for the independant report called "Crude Intentions" to see how ignorant a statement that really is.

    Saddam was tried for a few relatively minor crimes. and now that he is dead, he can be considered effectively innocent of all charges of mass murder of the kurds etc. but there was never a chance of him being put int he dock for charges that contain an "international perspective". and those who dont think that that same international perspective was behind this trial are sadly deluded.

  15. DSD — there have been many reasons put forward for the invasion, oil being but one. If you re-read my comment, I did not claim that the invasion was ‘all about oil.’ I merely stated that Iraq happened to be ‘sitting on a mountain of oil in a strategic area of the middle east.’ Had Saddam carried out the same actions in say Zimbabwe, the US wouldn’t have been in the least bit interested.

    Broadly speaking the reasons for invasion appear to be:

    1. Perceived strategic advantage of a US-friendly state in the middle east, particularly concerning the Iranian problem. This was euphemistically referred to as the need for ‘regime change.’

    2. Perceived fiscal advantage to US companies of investment in Iraq.

    3. Control of oil revenues and reliabilty of oil supply in an increasingly dwindling and unstable market.

    4. The need to be seen to be ‘doing something’ militarily in the wake of 9/11. The Afghanistan conquest was generally seen as being ‘not enough.’

    5. ‘Finishing the job’ not completed by Bush Sr. in Gulf War one.

    6. Payback for Saddam’s constant UN nose-thumbing.

    7. Pressure from the far-right post 9/11, with possible religious overtones from ‘end-time’ enthusiasts.

    Note I have not included either WMD or the notion of a dictator being brought to justice in this list.

  16. Daytripper. you say: "Saddam was tried for a few relatively minor crimes and now that he is dead, he can be considered effectively innocent of all charges of mass murder of the kurds etc…"

    I want to interrupt your propaganda to point out that Saddam Hussein was accussed and found guilty of the premeditated murder of 143 men in the city of Dujail in 1982.

    This is not a "relatively minor crime."

  17. ‘Satan’s little helper’?

    Coming from someone who prostituted his morals by bedding a bit of fluff he’d hardly met is strangely ironic.

  18. Would daytripper please advise how many people have to be murdered to constitute a major crime? I’m asking this for clarification of the following:

    "Saddam was tried for a few relatively minor crimes…."

    Would ‘Human Animals’ be opposed to any future American policy of overthrowing murderous dictatorships where it is militarily possible? By this I mean the likes of Zimbabwe but not China. I hope that HA is intelligent enough to see why I make the distinction.

  19. HA,

    To answer point by point…

    1. If they’d been bothered about the ‘Iranian problem’ at the time they’d have invaded Iran, not Iraq.

    2. Well, we can see how well that’s working out for them then…or not.

    3. Again, still to see any evidence of ‘control’ of supplies going on. If that was what they were after then they would have done both the decent and geopolitically advantageous thing and created a KURDISH state with control of the majority of Iraq’s oil which is situated within the Kurdish sphere of influence.

    4. Dont see that at all personally, we’ll just have to agree to differ on that one.

    5. We are in absolute agreement.

    6. Hardly. *US* nose-thumbing perhaps. But dont confuse the US public with dumbfucks like us who have this curious notion about any kind of actual legitimacy of the UN.

    7. Yawn. Who the hell is the ‘Far-Right’? Go check out the websites of every neo-Nazi group and paler ‘Far Right’ imitations such as the BNP. You’ll find they all say much the same things about Iraq as you and Daytripper do – we should never have been there, its an ‘illegal war’, its all about oil, Israeli-influenced Neocons, blah blah blah. Though I may be being unfair on you there – or am I?

  20. Well DSD, from your rebuttal points, I deduce that you reckon the US invasion of Iraq was ‘unfinished business’ and nothing else. Hardly a feasible excuse for a debacle which has thus far cost nearly 3000 US lives, triggered near civil war resulting in 100+ Iraqi dead every day this year, had precisely the opposite effect of winning the ‘war on terror’ and severely weakened the US position on the world stage.

    Perhaps you can enlighten us as to some other reason for this monumental US policy disaster.

  21. Allan: ”Would ‘Human Animals’ be opposed to any future American policy of overthrowing murderous dictatorships where it is militarily possible? By this I mean the likes of Zimbabwe but not China.”

    No more than I would be opposed to every child in Africa being given a weekly food hamper courtesy of the US. It’s about as likely.

    The US couldn’t give a stuff about overthrowing murderous dictatorships — they were more than happy to deal with Saddam when he was gassing the Kurds or throwing anthrax at the Iranians.

    The US is neither the world’s policeman nor a charitable institution. As I stated earlier, Saddam’s crimes were merely those of geography. Had he been the ruler of any African nation he could have massacred with impunity and died of old age. Let’s not kid ourselves that the US acted out of concern for the suffering of the Iraqi people.

  22. >>>Daytripper. you say: "Saddam was tried for a few relatively minor crimes and now that he is dead, he can be considered effectively innocent of all charges of mass murder of the kurds etc…"

    I want to interrupt your propaganda to point out that Saddam Hussein was accussed and found guilty of the premeditated murder of 143 men in the city of Dujail in 1982.

    This is not a "relatively minor crime."<<<

    >>>Would daytripper please advise how many people have to be murdered to constitute a major crime? I’m asking this for clarification of the following:

    "Saddam was tried for a few relatively minor crimes…."<<<

    nice to see the right-wing attack dogs can get their head round simple things like contextual relativity.

    hallabja or dujail? in the context of saddams crimes which one is worse? relatively speaking.

    then, when your finished answering that, ask yourself why they would not put him on trial for the higher crime, and why the dreaded MSM isnt asking the same question?

    btw, there are some debatable motives (which the lawyers on here could raise), but ultimately i dont buy them.

  23. Daytripper: "hallabja or dujail? in the context of saddams crimes which one is worse? relatively speaking.

    then, when your finished answering that, ask yourself why they would not put him on trial for the higher crime, and why the dreaded MSM isnt asking the same question?"

    It’s your propaganda, not mine… why would I waste time addressing your questions designed to distract and diminish the reality and the truth of the situation?

  24. I’d hope that daytripper would be able to get his head round a concept like answering a straight-forward question put in a straight-forward manner. I’ll try again:

    How many people have to be murdered before it becomes a major crime? By way of establishing a benchmark, would you say that the recent spate of murders in Ipswich was a major crime? If so, would those for which Saddam was indicted and executed be major crimes?

  25. NOT a "minor crime". a RELATIVELY minor crime. IN THE CONTEXT of his other crimes.

    but please, continue making fools of yourselves.

  26. Daytripper – where the death penalty is on the statute and murder is one crime for which the death penalty is prescribed, would you say that 143 murders is sufficiently serious to merit the imposition of the death penalty?

    I do see your point about ‘relative’ scale of crime but, from reading in the MSM, this is the one crime where the chain of command was complete and that each link in that chain was available to testify. Some of those in the Hallabjah chain were dead or missing (possibly amongst Frank’s imaginary 600,000 bodies) and that particular case would not meet the requirements of proof.

  27. >>>where the death penalty is on the statute and murder is one crime for which the death penalty is prescribed, would you say that 143 murders is sufficiently serious to merit the imposition of the death penalty?<<<

    no arguments here. and never was. see above.

    >>>I do see your point about ‘relative’ scale of crime<<<

    good because its a regular feature of discussions between us, where you assume what you want and i end up having to explain my way out of the maze that is your brain.

    >>>this is the one crime where the chain of command was complete and that each link in that chain was available to testify.<<<

    im fully aware why they choose this crime. but to limit the trial to these relatively minor crimes is in itself a crime. of course we can say that ultimately he was punished for these crimes, but actual justice was not served.

    >>>Some of those in the Hallabjah chain were dead or missing (possibly amongst Frank’s imaginary 600,000 bodies) and that particular case would not meet the requirements of proof.<<<

    this is a big factor, but ultimately no effort was made. and i speculate that this was to remove the risk of any defense bringing in an international perspective. he was tried for crimes that were 100% domestic.

  28. Daytripper: Your argument for relative degrees of evil is a red herring, designed to detract.

    Can a person be just a little evil? Rhetorical question, answer is "no."

    The premeditated murder of one man is as evil as the premeditated murder of many.

  29. >>>Your argument for relative degrees of evil is a red herring, designed to detract.<<<

    its designed to detract from nothing. i wanted to see saddam tried for his highest crimes. and under an internationally recognised court. it seems to be the right who have their morals in a twist, with statements such as "its more than his victims got". excellent, so the right benchmark their morals and sense of justice against those with the least consideration of such sentiments.

    check out why the professionals thought the trial unfair and severely lacking here;

    http://www.ictj.org/images/content/5/9/597.pdf

    other articles on the homepage.

    by the way there was a bizzare legal constraint which may have forced the hasty trial and execution. under iraqi law, it is forbidden to execute anyone over the age of 70. saddam would have been 70 in april.

    >>>The premeditated murder of one man is as evil as the premeditated murder of many.<<<

    the premeditated murder of one person is indeed evil, but to equate a single violent death with organised mass murder is detracts from the utter barbarity of the likes of stalin or hitler or saddam. there is a world of difference between a guy stabbed on a saturday night and marching 5000 men to a shallow grave in katyn forest or transporting 2000 women and children to belzec or sobibor.

  30. Daytripper: "Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the execution prevented exposure of the secrets and crimes the former dictator committed during his brutal rule." from the AP

    You and Ahmadinejad think alike.

  31. I have found in my life that the strongest cheerleaders for the death penalty are usually people with strong religious views. The atheists and agnostics I know (I’m agnostic) understand why people want the death penalty (the answer is mainly vengeance) but with a few exceptions feel the DP is wrong because it completely negates any form of punishment, except the momentary pain felt by the person executed. Heaven and Hell don’t exist to probably all atheists and most agnostics ergo the DP renders the executioners (i.e. the society that supports the DP) and the executed as one and the same i.e. murderers. Just give it some thought, after all not that long ago people were hung for theft.