web analytics

Goodbye, Saddam

By ATWadmin On December 30th, 2006

sadd hanging.jpgThis morning at 6 a.m local time Saddam Hussein paid the ultimate penalty for his brutal reign in Iraq. 

As the world reacts, there will be those that oppose the death penalty in all instances who will condemn the Iraqi authorities, there will be those that mourn the death of an ally.  Whereas his death will not resolve the on-going civil strife plaguing Iraq, there’s no reason to think it will make things worse.  For those elements of the insurgency with links to the Ba’athists, this must surely weaken their resolve.  Whatever happens in Iraq now, one possibility has been removed today.

37 Responses to “Goodbye, Saddam”

  1. Richard. Is that a real photograph? I despised the man and all he stood for but this is disturbing.

  2. Eileen,

    it’s the photo on Aljazeera, the BBC etc. Iraqi television broadcast the moments leading to the execution but not the actual hanging, as I understand it.

  3. They need to have some images of the actual hanging to prevent the inevitable conspiracy theories which would otherwise emerge.

  4. The coverage this afternoon on Beeb about the execution is nothing short of disgraceful.

    Why give significant air time to moonbats like Ben ??

  5. Joc,

    for those who didn’t see/hear what you’re talking about, what are you talking about? Who’s Ben?

  6. Tony Benn – an older and (slightly) more benign version of George Galloway.

    He seemed to be getting the prime spot today and his interview was repeated several times.

  7. I neither delight nor mourn at Hussein’s execution.

  8. From a previous thread, but I want it to continue:

    Frank, you’re right. There were nearly 700,000 dead in Iraq – but no-one can find the ‘missing’ 600,000 bodies, and the associated numbers of wounded. I’m sure they’ll turn up.

    Daytripper wrote:
    "allan, i still fail to see the point of all your equivocation. the US and UK actively aided in the destruction of hundreds of thousands of people using WMD. its nothing to be proud of."

    I thought you wrote previously that there were no WMD?
    Saturday, December 30, 2006 at 09:15PM | Allan@Aberdeen

    Reality check:

    http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php

    Saturday, December 30, 2006 at 09:17PM | Allan@Aberdeen

  9. Tom,

    I agree.

  10. For Allan@Aberdeen (also posted on the other thread):

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/10/another_lancet_roundup.php

  11. Frank, where are the bodies?

  12. >>>I thought you wrote previously that there were no WMD?<<<

    i may be tripping but you are genuinely hallucinating. i personally think you need to figure out a way to separate the two discussions youre having. because the one with the fairies inside your head is dominating everything you type.

    >>>where are the bodies?<<<

    in iraq.

  13. Good riddance to the dictator!

  14. I’m surprised he wasn’t stoned to death. After all muslims love getting in on the action when death and killing are afoot.

    I don’t agree with the death penalty since in my eyes it reduces the executioner to the level of the person he’s executing. I apply this to all uses of the death penalty, no matter how heinous the crime. Also (although Saddam wasn’t innocent) you can release someone subsquently found innocent from a life sentence, but you can’t resurrect them if you’ve executed them.

    With this hanging Pandora’s box may be opened even wider.

  15. The Vatican condemned the execution.Does that make them moonbats as well Joc?

  16. HM Revenue and Customs (formerly Inland Revenue) has decided to use the numerical method pioneered by The Lancet. HMRC will now be assessing each individual’s income based on the day on which he/she was paid. It will then be assumed that this was the income for every working day in that fiscal year and the tax bill will be produced accordingly. Note that the principle of evidence is abandoned and that bank statements showing actual cash flows are not considered as valid. Likewise, in Iraq, actual counts of dead, wounded and reported missing are not valid.

    That’s how The Lancet worked it – but the deranged think it’s sound.

  17. Allan@Aberdeen:

    You have demonstrated that you do not understand sampling. However shouldn’t you support your earlier false claim about the Lancet before making new false claims about the Lancet? Where is this ‘demonstration’ you spoke of?

    It does not exist, does it?

  18. Frank, it depends on where the sample is taken. You would work out the average temperature in your kitchen by using four thermocouples set inside your oven, would you? Err OK, you would, but I wouldn’t.

  19. Alan,

    You seem confused. You have not been asked to demonstrate your personal ignorance about random sampling, nor have you been asked to demonstrate the fact that you have not read or not understood the Lancet studies.

    You have been asked to back up your initial false claim that a demonstration had occurred.

    When will you attempt this instead of making new false claims?

  20. Frank,

    You choose to believe that the Lancet are telling the truth and that taking samplings on the word of the inhabitants of the most rabidly pro-Jihadist areas of Iraq is ‘random’. We don’t. Does that clarify things for you? We can toss this back and forth all day, it doesnt change that some of us think its a serious and valid study, and others that its made-up bullshit.

    And never the twain shall meet.

  21. DSD,

    You can believe what you wish, although it is not really a matter of opinion (i.e. random sampling is random or not, whether you think it is or not).

    My objection is mainly to Allan’s presentation of ill-informed opinion as fact.

    Although I also object to the rubbishing of the work of people who risked their necks to get the data, simply because the conclusions are not palatable. As many people have pointed out, the only way this study could be incorrect is if it is fraudulent. Therefore to say it is incorrect is a very serious claim.

    Allan has claimed that this has been demonstrated. I don’t believe him. I believe we would have heard about this if it were the case. That is why I’m asking to see the evidence. After all Allan feels very strongly about the "principle of evidence". So let’s see the evidence for his claim.

  22. Frank, here again is the link to people on the ground in Iraq (not in Jordan and Syria) who refute The Lancet’s theory.

    http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php

    Now, on sampling and general experimental data:

    If facts as available to hand and eye differ from the theory, the theory is wrong and should be adjusted. The Lancet has produced ‘results’ of dead in Iraq which are out by a factor greater than 10 compared with numbers confirmed dead at the time in question. The Lancet is wrong, that’s all. There are not half-a-million dead bodies from post-2003 rotting away in Iraq.

  23. "I don’t agree with the death penalty since in my eyes it reduces the executioner to the level of the person he’s executing."

    I don’t agree with the death penalty but I don’t accept that executing him in any way is in the same ball park as the things he has done.

    I still find this all very disturbing and had managed to avoid most of the footage on the TV. But npt completely. The image of masked men leading another man to his death is simply horrible. Not as horrible as the torture etc that he is responsible but still horrible.

    I also don’t like the fact that I am in the position of feeling sorry for such an evil man, beyond pitying him his evil.

    I wish my TV had been on the blink yesterday.

    I just hope that there are not worse long terms consequences for Iraq, and the world in gereral, than my disquiet.

  24. Allan,

    "Frank, here again is the link to people on the ground in Iraq (not in Jordan and Syria) who refute The Lancet’s theory."

    Except it does not. It is nothing but amateur argument from incredulity that has been amply rebutted elsewhere. You pretend it is the authoritative last word on the topic. Why?

    Moreover that is a link to a press release from people who are cataloging press reports. Not a peer reviewed paper from statisticians or epedimiologists. One of the IBC has a masters degree in Jazz studies!

    These are not people "on the ground in Iraq", either. Many if not most are in the UK.

    "If facts as available to hand and eye differ from the theory"

    If. Where are these facts? You have provided none.

  25. Frank: the ‘facts’ are the numbers of confirmed dead – that is the FACT. The Lancet’s hopeless extrapolations are refuted by the fact, and the fact is the number of dead in the mortuaries, in the cemetries, and listed as missing. The number does not come anywhere near 655,000.
    BTW, who killed the 655,000?

  26. Which of these points are true/false and why? Note especially point 1.

    A new study has been released by the Lancet medical journal estimating over 650,000 excess deaths in Iraq. The Iraqi mortality estimates published in the Lancet in October 2006 imply, among other things, that:

    1.On average, a thousand Iraqis have been violently killed every single day in the first half of 2006, with less than a tenth of them being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms;
    2.Some 800,000 or more Iraqis suffered blast wounds and other serious conflict-related injuries in the past two years, but less than a tenth of them received any kind of hospital treatment;
    3.Over 7% of the entire adult male population of Iraq has already been killed in violence, with no less than 10% in the worst affected areas covering most of central Iraq;
    4.Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued;
    5.The Coalition has killed far more Iraqis in the last year than in earlier years containing the initial massive "Shock and Awe" invasion and the major assaults on Falluja.

  27. Allan,

    "Frank: the ‘facts’ are the numbers of confirmed dead – that is the FACT. The Lancet’s hopeless extrapolations are refuted by the fact, and the fact is the number of dead in the mortuaries, in the cemetries, and listed as missing. The number does not come anywhere near 655,000."

    What is that number? Be sure to include your source.

    How many did Saddam kill, Allan?

  28. Allan,

    I guess you didn’t read the link I provided that responded point by point to that. Here it is again:

    "The Iraq Body Count has issued a press release criticising the study. They reckon the numbers are too high because:

    On average, a thousand Iraqis have been violently killed every single day in the first half of 2006, with less than a tenth of them being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms;

    Yes, and the study provides evidence that such mechanisms break down in a civil war.

    Some 800,000 or more Iraqis suffered blast wounds and other serious conflict-related injuries in the past two years, but less than a tenth of them received any kind of hospital treatment;

    Or, as noted above, statistics aren’t being collected properly. And people would seem to have good reasons for avoiding hospital treatment.

    Over 7% of the entire adult male population of Iraq has already been killed in violence, with no less than 10% in the worst affected areas covering most of central Iraq;

    Yes. Why is this so hard to believe?

    Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued;

    Well, not by the central government. See earlier point.

    The Coalition has killed far more Iraqis in the last year than in earlier years containing the initial massive "Shock and Awe" invasion and the major assaults on Falluja.

    Well, the number is bigger in the last year, but it’s not significantly bigger than the year that included Falluja. As for "Shock and Awe", the target there was the Iraqi military, which would not be counted in the Lancet study. In "Shock and Awe" it would have been possible to avoid civilian casualties to a large extent, while with current operations the insurgents are hiding amongst the civilian population and many more Iraqis will die."

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/10/another_lancet_roundup.php

  29. a common text message amaong iraqi teenagers.

    "it has not been possible to complete this call as the recipient has been kidnapped or bombed".

  30. Who are doing the kidnapping? Who are doing the bombing?

  31. does the lancet report claim that all violent deaths are directly attributable to the coalition forces?

    no!

    id also like to add that i personally will take my chances on the reports validity based also on the fact that the lancet is a world renowned independant medical journal. academic and professional journals dont publish reports casually or with out review. it would be professional and academic suicide. in a straight toss up between them and myriad hacks heavily invested in the hope that its findings are wrong, ill stick with the pros, and not the cons.

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

    I’m not surprised to see that your views re: Saddams execution and Ahmadinejad’s are the same.

  33. "I’m not surprised to see that your views re: Saddams execution and Ahmadinejad’s are the same."

    Does that pass for an argument in RightWorld?

    Perhaps they also agree that the sun is hot and the value of 2+2 is 4. No doubt you disagree?

  34. Frank: it’s not really an argument so much as a comment. Making an argument with Daytripper is like making an argument with Ahmadinejad. Neither of them answer direct questions, both are virulently anti-West, anti-American, both push propaganda not discussion.

  35. >>>Does that pass for an argument in RightWorld?<<<

    apparently so, o_O

    >>>Making an argument with Daytripper is like making an argument with Ahmadinejad. Neither of them answer direct questions, both are virulently anti-West, anti-American, both push propaganda not discussion.<<<

    ill be thinking of you, at the ambassadors ball.

  36. Notme,

    "Frank: it’s not really an argument"

    You got that right.

  37. Going off topic warning! From what I have gathered from my research and ponderings regarding muslim nations they don’t want democracy. They only want what they can understand and that seems to be brute force, theological domination and ignorance. Let them have it! If they want to be smashed down by religiously insane oppressors then who are we to try and save them from their mob stupidity? I have no interest in hearing about the Westernised Iraqi/Iranian/Palestinian you know who loves democracy because he/she is not representative. Just look at the mob mindedness they display. If you cut a white baby wrapped in an American/British flag into small pieces with a bread knife in front of these animals they’d all absolutely love it. In Britain we treat livestock better than these people ever expect/want to be treated. If my colourful language upsets you then maybe you need to take a long hard look at most of the world and see it for what it truly is.