It certainly does Djinni - hold on - he was the bad guy wasn't he - I am sure I have that the right way round.

Right. Only the issue is rather confused in this case isn't it. Justification for the invasion of Iraq has by no small measure rested upon the notion that Saddam was a 'brutal dictator' that needed to be removed in order to bring 'freedom' and 'democracy' (Western ideas and standards) to Iraq. So, it was unacceptable by 'Western' standards for Saddam Hussein to imprison and execute his opponents without trial, but it is acceptable for the new, American-appointed Iraqi Prime Minister to do so? Where is the consistancy here?

Do you, John, believe that the war in Iraq was justified? Do you think that imposing your standards upon people you will most likely never meet was justified? If so, then fair enough, but if these allegations of execution without trial are true, then surely this PM must be opposed and removed from power? Right? </font>[/QUOTE]Hiero, you would be correct if I opossed impossing my standards on others, I don't, nor do I oposse other trying to imposse their standards on me. In fact I welcome that, I love to watch them go down in flames ;)

Yes to both questions. I didn't oposse Sodamn Insane because he executed people without trial, by western standards, but because he sactioned the killing and torturing/rape of family members of people that committed offenses that I believe didn't deserve that punishment. As you have writen "if these allegations" come back to me when they are no longer allegations but facts and we'll talk. Until then they are just allegations/acusations/yapping.

If anybody has problems with the new P.M., well get your gov'ts to gather their armies togather and take him out. Remember those that can do those that can't don't. In the physical world it's how many divisions you have in the field that count.

Aerich, I have no problem with the western standards, if I did I would leave. I agree with your statement on power and the ease of abuse. I don't even have a problem with people trying to impose their views/standards on others, that's life from what I've been able to see, we each and everyone of us try to to that to some extent or another. I do have a problem with people that for the sake of convenence will state that somebody is trying to impose their views/standards on somebody else in ONE arguement, yet the same people will try to impose their views/standards on others in another arguement.

Fair enough. We all do it to some extent, even if we try not to. Practically unavoidable. It's also easy to misconstrue someone else's points, or read in meanings and emphasis they didn't intend. Stupid language!

Anybody found any other sources that talk about the supposed execution?

Well I've seen it.

Weren't some insurgents executed at Kent State University once? I seem to recall that.

In self-defence of course.

Yeah! -- the voice from the land of recreational rioters trumps up one of our past occurrences. :rolleyes:

You don't even want to go there Donut!!!! During that time in the USA My father was an USAF ROTC instructor(1968-1970) Part of those peace love bortherhood of man crowd wanted to burn down our house kill my mom & dad. and on more then one occasion the local police kept a very tight watch on our house to make sure none of the "make love not war" pinko pimpply faced pukes stayed away. We lived in the country so the Hypocritical magot infested dope smoking wienny wacking sacks of horse manure didn't know exactly where we lived, lucking for them both of my parents are good ole country folk raised in Texas and can shoot. They tried once to strom the ROTC building, my dad and those under his command met them at the door and explained to them they may storm it but the first couple of dozen that tried wouldn't get to find out if the rest of them succeded. They decided they would march around carrying signs, maybe some of that money they parents spent for some learn'n worked that day.

Uh, help me out here... so, you don't approve of the 1970 student protests then? ;)

Anyway, did the students try to 'storm' the ROTC building before or after they'd burned it? And did these, um, "Hypocritical magot infested dope smoking wienny wacking sacks of horse manure" [sic] want to kill your Dad before or after the armed forces opened fire on crowds of unarmed protestors?

http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/6/65/...e_massacre.jpg

Of course, we're really getting off topic here.... cheers Donut! [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] :D

[ 07-21-2004, 07:45 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

Don't know what you mean! Are you talking about football hooligans, I hope not because you are likely to highlight your ignorance of the subject. Why are you always so defensive?

I merely want people to think about who decides who is an insurgent or who isn't. Would you prefer the courts to decide or some quasi paramilitary organisation?

BTW - overuse of the rolleyes smiley again! Tut tut!