I'm interested in the mentality that finds it "humiliating" that a mass-murdering dictator was executed if he is the same race/ethnicity/tribe/religion/whatever as you. Apparently these people identify with Saddam Hussein.
Timothy McVeigh was a mass-murderer and he was executed. I am not aware of a large number of Christians (or whites, or Americans...) who found it "humiliating". That's because few people identified with him. Guess what we call those that did? A-holes.
Yet apparently nontrivial #s of Sunnis (and Shias? and Arabs? and Muslims?) identified with Saddam Hussein, a mass-murderer of such proportions as to make McVeigh look like a piker by comparison, to the point where they care if he is executed, and when, and how, and can feel personally "humiliated" by the execution. Why?
Truth About Iraqis' post is pretty offensive. He dares to analogize Saddam Hussein to Imam Husain AS?
Thoughts From Baghdad has it exactly right. Today is Eid al Adha, and the symbolism of executing Saddam today needlessly complicates what shoudl be a straightforward thing.
It isnt like the significance of today is some esoteric thing, either. The Administration seems to be unable to play it smart. They just barrel ahead without any foresight or even basic due diligence. It wouldn't surprise me if some enterprising young suit in some echelon of the White House's political wing came up with the idea of executing Saddam on Eid ul Adha deliberately.
Outside Iraq people will divide over his hanging, just like they divided over his life and rule but here in Iraq most of us feel that today justice has been served. Those who mourn him are a few and are still living in the past that has no future in Iraq.
To those who didn’t like justice I say that his death means life to many.
Executing the dictator renews the hopes of not only Iraqis but also of other oppressed peoples in the world in having a better future where they enjoy freedom. It's time for other tyrants to learn from this lesson and realize that a similar fate is on the way if they refuse to change.
And:
On this day as we celebrate justice we shall not forget to pray for blessings for the souls of the dictator's victims and we shall not forget to thank our brothers in America and the rest of the coalition nations who helped us and are still helping us in our struggle to build the new free and democratic Iraq.
As for executing Saddam on Eid: according to Islamic law the day does not begin until dawn, and he was executed well before dawn. Thus he was not executed on any holiday.
To Caroline's point: a number of Sunni Arabs, a distinct minority in Iraq, liked Saddam. Why wouldn't they? He showered his blessings on them and they were a favored, pampered minority under him. Their situation was virtually identical to the situation of white South Africans under Apartheid. I feel no sympathy for them whatsoever, and neither should you.
And by the way, while we often refer to them as Iraq's "Sunnis," in point of fact that's lazy shorthand. We're talking specifically about Sunni Arabs. Sunni Kurds and Sunni Assyrians and other non-Arab Sunnis were all treated like garbage under Saddam.
The Sunni Arab minority lorded it over the entire nation for generations. Which is, again, why I have little patience watching them whine now.
You're right, Dean. Why wouldn't they? They have a tribal mentality, and tribal mentalities lead to moral perversions, such as liking a mass murdering tyrant if he is of your tribe, and considering him great if he kills/destroys others in such a way as to allow him to "shower his blessings on" and "pamper" your tribe.
Aziz you blame "the Administration". Which "Administration"? The Bush administration does not seem to have been involved in the decision of the timing. The Iraq administration? But wasn't it actually an Iraqi judge who made the decision?
And I'm still wondering why the "timing" matters. Saddam was a mass-murdering tyrant. Why does it make you unhappy if he is executed on such-and-such day?
I believe that with the exceptions of Zeyad of Healing Iraq and Sam of Hammorabi the other Iraqi bloggers I've cited here are all women. Just the way it worked out.
Ali, I think that Fatima of Thoughts from Baghdad is the greatest. She's nearly always sensible and spot on.
Aziz:
Your statements that the administration “barrel ahead without any foresight or even basic due diligence” but also that some young suit in the administration came up with the idea are kind of contradictory are they not?
I haven’t seen any evidence that the administration influenced the date. I’m more inclined to believe that they did not know of the holiday or its significance. But it also seems clear that the timing was chosen by the Iraqi government.
Rubaie told Iraqiyah state television that only Saddam was executed, because they wanted to make it a special day for him. He said they chose the execution time, just before sunrise, so it would occur before the official start of the Muslim holiday Eid al-Adha, which marks the end of the pilgrimage to Mecca.
Is that a valid point? Does the holiday begin at sunrise? Does executing him before sunrise mean he was not killed on the holiday?
It seems to me, if you want to know why Iraq is a mess, just read these comments.
With a state of mind like that, how can a society be functional? It boggles the mind. You'd think after all the violence they'd want to concentrate on making something positive of their country.
It's like they're addicted to playing the victim card, or something...
And I'm still wondering why the "timing" matters. Saddam was a mass-murdering tyrant. Why does it make you unhappy if he is executed on such-and-such day?
Because execution of a tyrant should be a clear signal, free of any potential complications. Now, whatever message or moral certainty we might have leveraged from executing the mass murderer, will be partly obscured in needless controversy.
It shoudl have been black and white, in terms of "marketing". But the marketing was flubbed. Now the public to which we are trying to market sees it as shades of gray.
Seems like they managed to screw up even a simple thing like an execution by holding it on a Sunni holy day: making it just another F-U back in forth in the internal conflict as well as giving Saddam lots of room to posture as a martyr, which is about the last thing he was.
A kangaroo court that almost everyone in Iraq saw as a show put on by the West for audiences in West, the US repeatedly lying about their influence over it, and a botched execution. Par for the course I guess.
It breaks my heart to think that anyone could possibly believe that the US had no input on the date and circumstances. They decided the handover, they had to agree upon everything for security measures, and so forth.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/12/29/D8MATDQ01.html
Why are there "complications" if a tyrant who undoubtedly merits execution is executed on day X and not day Y? I'm not disputing that there are/will be. I'm questioning the mentality that feels "complicated" about such timing, capisce? Granted, this mentality exists, and is reality. But it is not obvious to me why such a mentality ought to be indulged or nurtured as if it is healthy. It is not!
Why does the deserved execution of a tyrant need to be "marketed"? Isn't there something fundamentally wrong with a mentality that will bristle/feel bad about the execution due to these rather trivial ancillary/trivial considerations of chronology, "symbolism", "marketing"?
In short, I'm asking: rather than taking that mentality for granted, or indulging it, wouldn't it be better to tell such people to grow up?
Iraqi Konfused Kid: "it is harmonious with the vengeful nature of Shiite Islam, as hatred of tyranny and cruel avengance are major pillars in their sect"
so execution of a tyrant, normally a black and white thing, becomes another wedge between sunnis and shi'a. During a raging civil war.
So there is a point of view which claims "Shiite Islam", en masse, has a "vengeful nature". And I am supposed to respect and indulge that point of view? and Shiites must tailor the timing of their actions accordingly?
I am also curious about the alleged "hatred of tyranny" within Shiite Islam. Even if that were true, is that meant pejoratively? Is it bad to hate tyranny? I don't understand.
The larger question is why a black and white issue such as execution of a tyrant would become a "wedge". You blame the timing of the actors. Does not the blame properly lie with people who look at a black and white issue and let utter trivia cloud their thinking about it?
The news stories could not be more clear: all the US government wanted was to hand Saddam over in a secure way so he couldn't possibly escape, and they wanted assurances he wouldn't be mutilated before or after execution. Those are the only things they attempted to negotiate.
Yes, of course there will always be those with the subconsciously racist, Orientalist mindset who continue to insist that the Iraqi government is really a puppet government and that their courts do our secret bidding. Why not? Making such assertions helps fuel their blind hatred of the current administration, and that feels good I'm sure.
It's pretty pathetic, but it's par for the course these days.
By the way, ALL news accounts I've seen have said that the Iraqi government repeatedly asserted that there was no religious holiday being violated if they executed him before dawn. Including that well-known bastion of right-wingerism, NPR.
So apparently the Iraqi government doesn't know when Islamic holidays begin?
Let's face it, all this crap about his execution being on the wrong date and time is meaningless, because no matter when he was executed virtually all the statements would be exactly the same.
It's entirely possible that Iraq will not stay stable as a single nation. The idea that it will blow apart because the tyrant was killed at the wrong time of day is ridiculous.
This means that if the British kill some random IRA leader on the first day of Lent that Catholics all over the world are going to be offended by the choice of day and time?
from what ive been reading, the sunnis and shia in iraq count the holidays somewhat differently.
Well it's just a good thing that in the process of justly executing one of the worst murderers in recent memory, nobody has lost sight of what's really important.... like how a holiday is defined.
Sunni Arabs like Riverbend, Star, etc., had it pretty good under Saddam. While Shia and Kurds were being put in mass graves the Sunnis were partying with the oil money.
Now the situation is reversed. The violence has come home, while Kurds and Shia prosper. And the most ironic part is it's still Sunnis causing the violence!
For some time now, I've thought that with or without Saddam Hussein, a viable iraqi state was more or less doomed by our intervention. Instead,the closest thing you'll all see is some sort of vaguely-defined loose federation. If that.
One thing for sure. Nearly all the Kurds want out, and they're just biding their time. That would leave the sun'a Arabs to play the roll of kickme ball for the Shi'a Arabs. Over which the Saudis have already said they will supply arms separately to the Sun'a to oppose the Shi'a.
I like that, because I always wanted to see an independent Kurdistan, and I'm increasingly sure an endless civil war -- just like in Hamastine -- is what they'll get in Mesopotamia.
(Can't hardly call it "Iraq" anymore, can we?)
Go ahead. Tell me how wrong I am about all this.
Just don't feed me the usual conventional wisdom that goes like:
"Well, we have to make it work, because it's unthinkable to break up a country like Iraq. And it would be a betrayal of everything we fought for there."
To which my response is:
"Well, whoever planned this venture should have thought about such a breakup as a likely result of getting rid of the baathist dictatorship."
Arnold, I don't think there's any reason Iraq *must* stay as a single unit, but I think there are reasons why it might be a good idea. One is "unity through diversity" - IF they can learn to live together, they will be stronger as a whole than if they don't. Another is that if they break up, then there is the possibility of the sub-states going to war with each other - possibly for the very reason that they could not learn to live with each other in the first place. Another is that Iraq loosely overlaps with an area which traditionally was governed as a single unit (which Syria was also a part of). I'm not just talking about British Empire boundaries, but going back much further than that.
I think there is an argument that if something rash were to be done (i.e. breaking Iraq up into 3 pieces) to quell the current relatively low level of violence, it would be a capitulation to racism and religionism and they would learn nothing, and the hatred would simmer away below the surface and one day break out into something much worse. Seriously, do we really want a middle east with MORE countries that hate each other and the things their neighbours stand for? Isn't it much more important that they learn to live with others, understand them, and repect them, if the ME is to be a peaceful place?
Someone once said "if ceasefires lead to peace, the middle east would be the most peaceful place on earth". I think you could similarly say "if breaking up a country into smaller pieces is the solution to sectarian strife, the middle east would have less sectarian strife than anywhere else on the planet".
Now, I guess that sort of thing has worked for the Balkans (so far). So I can't rule out that it might turn out to be the best idea. I'm just not so sure that it is. But, regardless, it isn't up to me (or you), they will eventually have to decide themselves I suppose.
Worse? But it was a sovereign and peaceful nation living out an idyllic existence until the encroachment of Imperial American Oil Interests and Chimpie McHitler out to get revenge for Dead Old Dad. If it wasn't for us right now, Iraq would be celebrating fifteen years of independence since trouncing American and Vassal State forces in the first Gulf War.
The 1973 war in the ME, known as the October War, or the Yom Kippur War was begun by the Arabs during a Jewish holy season.
I guess it all depends.
And if it all depends, I don't give a shit about it.
There you have it, Aubrey. I've been hearing the phoney outrage over "how dare you do [something they don't want done] during [some Muslim holiday]" for years now; but I never hear the Muslim extremists holding back out of respect for any Jewish holiday. Or any Christian holiday. Or even any Muslim holiday.
1.1.2007 12:34pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
www.thoughttheater.com
How embarrassing for them.
Timothy McVeigh was a mass-murderer and he was executed. I am not aware of a large number of Christians (or whites, or Americans...) who found it "humiliating". That's because few people identified with him. Guess what we call those that did? A-holes.
Yet apparently nontrivial #s of Sunnis (and Shias? and Arabs? and Muslims?) identified with Saddam Hussein, a mass-murderer of such proportions as to make McVeigh look like a piker by comparison, to the point where they care if he is executed, and when, and how, and can feel personally "humiliated" by the execution. Why?
Because they have a tribal mentality.
Thoughts From Baghdad has it exactly right. Today is Eid al Adha, and the symbolism of executing Saddam today needlessly complicates what shoudl be a straightforward thing.
It isnt like the significance of today is some esoteric thing, either. The Administration seems to be unable to play it smart. They just barrel ahead without any foresight or even basic due diligence. It wouldn't surprise me if some enterprising young suit in some echelon of the White House's political wing came up with the idea of executing Saddam on Eid ul Adha deliberately.
You can read it all right here.
As for executing Saddam on Eid: according to Islamic law the day does not begin until dawn, and he was executed well before dawn. Thus he was not executed on any holiday.
To Caroline's point: a number of Sunni Arabs, a distinct minority in Iraq, liked Saddam. Why wouldn't they? He showered his blessings on them and they were a favored, pampered minority under him. Their situation was virtually identical to the situation of white South Africans under Apartheid. I feel no sympathy for them whatsoever, and neither should you.
The Sunni Arab minority lorded it over the entire nation for generations. Which is, again, why I have little patience watching them whine now.
That's precisely what I'm saying.
And I'm still wondering why the "timing" matters. Saddam was a mass-murdering tyrant. Why does it make you unhappy if he is executed on such-and-such day?
Ali, I think that Fatima of Thoughts from Baghdad is the greatest. She's nearly always sensible and spot on.
Your statements that the administration “barrel ahead without any foresight or even basic due diligence” but also that some young suit in the administration came up with the idea are kind of contradictory are they not?
I haven’t seen any evidence that the administration influenced the date. I’m more inclined to believe that they did not know of the holiday or its significance. But it also seems clear that the timing was chosen by the Iraqi government.
Is that a valid point? Does the holiday begin at sunrise? Does executing him before sunrise mean he was not killed on the holiday?
With a state of mind like that, how can a society be functional? It boggles the mind. You'd think after all the violence they'd want to concentrate on making something positive of their country.
It's like they're addicted to playing the victim card, or something...
No, the start of the day is actually sunset, not dawn.
Because execution of a tyrant should be a clear signal, free of any potential complications. Now, whatever message or moral certainty we might have leveraged from executing the mass murderer, will be partly obscured in needless controversy.
It shoudl have been black and white, in terms of "marketing". But the marketing was flubbed. Now the public to which we are trying to market sees it as shades of gray.
A kangaroo court that almost everyone in Iraq saw as a show put on by the West for audiences in West, the US repeatedly lying about their influence over it, and a botched execution. Par for the course I guess.
It breaks my heart to think that anyone could possibly believe that the US had no input on the date and circumstances. They decided the handover, they had to agree upon everything for security measures, and so forth.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/12/29/D8MATDQ01.html
Why does the deserved execution of a tyrant need to be "marketed"? Isn't there something fundamentally wrong with a mentality that will bristle/feel bad about the execution due to these rather trivial ancillary/trivial considerations of chronology, "symbolism", "marketing"?
In short, I'm asking: rather than taking that mentality for granted, or indulging it, wouldn't it be better to tell such people to grow up?
By "botched", Vic means "It happened while a Republican was in the White House". That's pretty much an all-purpose definition for him.
Iraqi Konfused Kid: "it is harmonious with the vengeful nature of Shiite Islam, as hatred of tyranny and cruel avengance are major pillars in their sect"
so execution of a tyrant, normally a black and white thing, becomes another wedge between sunnis and shi'a. During a raging civil war.
So there is a point of view which claims "Shiite Islam", en masse, has a "vengeful nature". And I am supposed to respect and indulge that point of view? and Shiites must tailor the timing of their actions accordingly?
I am also curious about the alleged "hatred of tyranny" within Shiite Islam. Even if that were true, is that meant pejoratively? Is it bad to hate tyranny? I don't understand.
The larger question is why a black and white issue such as execution of a tyrant would become a "wedge". You blame the timing of the actors. Does not the blame properly lie with people who look at a black and white issue and let utter trivia cloud their thinking about it?
Yes, of course there will always be those with the subconsciously racist, Orientalist mindset who continue to insist that the Iraqi government is really a puppet government and that their courts do our secret bidding. Why not? Making such assertions helps fuel their blind hatred of the current administration, and that feels good I'm sure.
It's pretty pathetic, but it's par for the course these days.
So apparently the Iraqi government doesn't know when Islamic holidays begin?
Let's face it, all this crap about his execution being on the wrong date and time is meaningless, because no matter when he was executed virtually all the statements would be exactly the same.
It's entirely possible that Iraq will not stay stable as a single nation. The idea that it will blow apart because the tyrant was killed at the wrong time of day is ridiculous.
So apparently the Iraqi government doesn't know when Islamic holidays begin?
from what ive been reading, the sunnis and shia in iraq count the holidays somewhat differently.
The idea that it will blow apart because the tyrant was killed at the wrong time of day is ridiculous.
agreed, which is why i made no such assertion.
Well it's just a good thing that in the process of justly executing one of the worst murderers in recent memory, nobody has lost sight of what's really important.... like how a holiday is defined.
*eye roll*
Sunni Arabs like Riverbend, Star, etc., had it pretty good under Saddam. While Shia and Kurds were being put in mass graves the Sunnis were partying with the oil money.
Now the situation is reversed. The violence has come home, while Kurds and Shia prosper. And the most ironic part is it's still Sunnis causing the violence!
Cry me a river, folks.
One thing for sure. Nearly all the Kurds want out, and they're just biding their time. That would leave the sun'a Arabs to play the roll of kickme ball for the Shi'a Arabs. Over which the Saudis have already said they will supply arms separately to the Sun'a to oppose the Shi'a.
I like that, because I always wanted to see an independent Kurdistan, and I'm increasingly sure an endless civil war -- just like in Hamastine -- is what they'll get in Mesopotamia.
(Can't hardly call it "Iraq" anymore, can we?)
Go ahead. Tell me how wrong I am about all this.
Just don't feed me the usual conventional wisdom that goes like:
"Well, we have to make it work, because it's unthinkable to break up a country like Iraq. And it would be a betrayal of everything we fought for there."
To which my response is:
"Well, whoever planned this venture should have thought about such a breakup as a likely result of getting rid of the baathist dictatorship."
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
I think there is an argument that if something rash were to be done (i.e. breaking Iraq up into 3 pieces) to quell the current relatively low level of violence, it would be a capitulation to racism and religionism and they would learn nothing, and the hatred would simmer away below the surface and one day break out into something much worse. Seriously, do we really want a middle east with MORE countries that hate each other and the things their neighbours stand for? Isn't it much more important that they learn to live with others, understand them, and repect them, if the ME is to be a peaceful place?
Someone once said "if ceasefires lead to peace, the middle east would be the most peaceful place on earth". I think you could similarly say "if breaking up a country into smaller pieces is the solution to sectarian strife, the middle east would have less sectarian strife than anywhere else on the planet".
Now, I guess that sort of thing has worked for the Balkans (so far). So I can't rule out that it might turn out to be the best idea. I'm just not so sure that it is. But, regardless, it isn't up to me (or you), they will eventually have to decide themselves I suppose.
I guess it all depends.
And if it all depends, I don't give a shit about it.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.