1919, British general ordered killing of 800 innocent civilians in india. Compare it with Saddams act?
Dyre was glorfied with prize money and honors. Now, the same country supported and bught saddam to justice for killing 143 shites. Why different yard stick..........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/jallianwala...
2006-12-31 19:02:55 · 8 answers · asked by lonly_planet1976 3 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Its all about politics, money and power. Nothing more nothing less. We have been friends with alot of dictators because we need their oil or some other product. That is why people need to vote and look at a persons history before making decisions. The weak and poor will always get the raw deal. Sad but true.
2006-12-31 19:06:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
First of all India was under British Control....
Blood thirsty British General killed the unarmed Indian peace lovers
They could only shout..
Iraq was/is a sovereign state....
Shiahs got killed were supported by Iran/Kuwait with money and arms.. The raising was not to express their sovereignity but to topple the Government....The people who took arms might have thought, it would easily spread like a wild fire in the entire Iraq..and Saddham would be banished by force...It failed and 125 people got killed .. Sadhhm held his position with great strength on understanding the motive....
Even it can happen in any part of the world.. Once a a sect tries for a separate state..like in Sri Lanka... Government versus Tamil Tigers..unending fight is going one.. Why US & UK is not taking interest? Tibet occupied by China sice five decades..Why US is not showing interest?
2007-01-01 03:21:07 · answer #2 · answered by SESHADRI K 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Sadaam was only found guilty of killing 143. He was actually responsible for the deaths of MILLIONS! Get your head outta your hind parts!
2007-01-02 12:42:27 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who knows. Many things in life cannot be explained and we must always learn from the lessons of history.
2007-01-01 03:19:56 · answer #4 · answered by Murphyboy 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Oh ! Dear it was in 1919 , now it is 2007....? History will answer your question after 100 years from now...
2007-01-01 03:17:38 · answer #5 · answered by deepaklbhatia 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
You have a good point,there isn't much of a difference is there?
2007-01-01 03:05:17 · answer #6 · answered by elizabeth v 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
war is messing and these thing happen sorry. when war happen people will die
2007-01-01 16:53:03 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
More loony Islam apologetics.....give it a break.
2007-01-01 03:04:46 · answer #8 · answered by Shalom Yisrael! 1 · 0⤊ 3⤋