English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

here is a comment from a Inidan news paper:

"away, in a country that is home to the world's second largest Islamic population but nevertheless overwhelmingly Hindu, there was widespread revulsion over Saddam's killing. It wasn't because the man on the street in India loved Saddam or his ways. But because people felt it was in poor taste to first have a man convicted with a court whose credibility was in doubt - and then film his last moments. How different were Saddam's executioners from those of Al Qaeda"

Your thoughts? Were the execution taping any differnt than the Al Queda's?

2007-01-01 23:12:38 · 6 answers · asked by rat123pig 3 in News & Events Current Events

6 answers

I would have to say that I felt that the execution was hurried. The appeals court seemed to dismiss the appeal without careful consideration, the filming of the "event" was in poor taste, and while I agree with the verdict I think that the rush calls into some queston of the agenda of those trying him.

2007-01-01 23:25:46 · answer #1 · answered by kerfitz 6 · 0 0

Yes I liked it. I don't care what some columnist in India thinks or pretends to think to sell papers.
Saddam has nothing to do with al queda so why would they even care about him. They weren't allies or enemies.
The main difference is the alqueda murdered innocent victims that they kidnapped.
A hanging is much more humane than decapitation.

Compared to the al queda murders Saddam got a merciful death.
I'm glad he's dead and I don't think retaliation for his death would be any worse than the daily bombings and murders they're already doing. If they could do more they would be doing it .
The only difference is now they'll say they're doing it for Saddam.


They should have just dropped a grenade in his spiderhole.

2007-01-02 00:13:21 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

i believe the taping shouldn't have been there...
also instead of hanging Saddam had initially asked to be killied in a firing squad, which was rejected..this itself shows nothing was justified

2007-01-01 23:21:07 · answer #3 · answered by shanthicharuvil 3 · 0 0

I think he should have been thrown handcuffed into a crowd of people that had had to endure his evil reign. People who'd lost mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters because of him.
Hanging him and videoing it was great, but I think they should have been more creative. Perhaps torture him severely and then cut his head off with a rusty butterknife. Of course spray him with pig's blood, just to deny him entrance to any "heaven" he might believe there was, and then soak his still bleeding corpse in diesel fuel and light it up.

You asked........

2007-01-01 23:19:40 · answer #4 · answered by kvalley_94061 2 · 0 1

Well from what I have read, if the hanging is done properly death is instant and no pain. I did see the video and it did not appear that he suffered.

2007-01-01 23:20:54 · answer #5 · answered by tnbadbunny 5 · 0 1

No, I don't like the death penalty, period, much less the death being taped. But it's not for me to decide.

2007-01-01 23:23:29 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers