Saddam - The Sacrificial Lion

#37 arjun writes <<< however, the blame for the 600K dead iraqis, most of whom have been killed in shia-sunni violence, lies on america...that can`t be contested..no siree... >>

You posts progess from stupidity to ignorance, every successive post beats the previous one in being dimwitted. If universities, like the ones that come up with the Iraq dead had conducted those studies and come up with the numbers and not only the victims claiming the numbers killed (a biased source) then there would be little contest in those numbers. That however is not the case.

Regarding the blame of the Iraq dead, these occurred in the post US invasion period when the US was the overlord in Iraq. If Saddam can be held responsible for deaths in his period the blame for the country-wide deaths in the US/US puppet thugs time lies on the US, not to mention that these killings are the direct result of the war and how it destroyed civil society in Iraq and deliberately played one group against the other, and let me remind you that both Shias and Sunnis are going to lose in this game the US is playing...

#38 by masadi on January 2, 2007 10:12am PT

conrade...didn`t you read it in the news...a majority of pakis(and bangladeshis) don`t believe in democracy...which explains why they were dancing when el-presidente heroically, harrison ford style, rescued himself from a hijacking and took over the country....

SC writes <<< Masadi Sahib,
Eid Mubarak and Happy New Year to you, my friend. Now, as for who is to blame, don`t you agree that at some point, we Muslims need to take responsibility over our own environment? >>>

Eid Mubarak and HNY to you as well. You are confusing public issues having to do with social institutions with ``personal`` responsibility. When the institutions of a country are designed to operate in a particular fashion, no `personal responsibility` can achieve anything except personal sacrifice and slaughter. When Muslims become conscious of the true issues that affect their lives more will be able to take `personal responsibility` towards meaningful ends. Right now they are busy with petty differences which are exploited by those that ensure that Muslim instutions do not serve Muslim people but serve the West.

Jang writes <<< Masadi, why should the people and the society not be blamed? the leaders do not come from a vaccum. pakistani leadership in not un-representative, it represents the will of many of its people. >>>

Amazing, now coups and rule by force is defined as ``representative``. The military as an institution has no part in the political but unfortunately in Pakistan it defines the political. You have absolutely no proof that the rule by this military tyrant defines the will of the people of Paksitan. Even in the atmosphere where these people are offered little hope and little choice people reject these tyrants when given the opportunity.

#31 by masadi on January 2, 2007 8:48am PT


``Pakistanis`` are just as much guilty of the blood of 3 million Bengalis (the numbers that you throw out are still contested)


That`s right comrade...tht number is contested...however, the blame for the 600K dead iraqis, most of whom have been killed in shia-sunni violence, lies on america...that can`t be contested..no siree...

#35, Anil,
While it is dangerous to generalize and considering that there are many many offshoots of Shiaism and Sunni schools of thought, it is probably fair to state that:

Shias believe that Ali, the cousin and son-in-law of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), should have been the first caliph (successor).
Shias believe that the ruler must rule with the will of the majority, be a good Muslim, and should be removed if not appropriate as a ruler.
Shias believe that Islamic law is not inflexible and should evolve based on interpretation.
Shias believe that true Islam was maintained by the 12 Imams (father and son successors of Ali, the first Imam) - Asna Ashuri (12 ers) are the majority of Shiites from Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, India, the Gulf. Ismaili (7 ers) are an offshoot and found in Pakistan, India, and previously were the majority in Egypt during the Fatimid Caliphate.
Shias believe that the last Imam, Imam Mahdi, did not die and will return to spread justice just before the end of the world.


Sunnis believe that Abu Baker, Omar, Uthman, and Ali were properly selected as the first four Caliphs.
Sunnis believe that Islamic Law is based on the Holy Koran and the Sunnah (tradition of the Holy Propohet (PBUH)) and is not subject to further modification.
Sunnis supported the caliphate of Muawiyah and his son Yazid and their descendants that formed the Ommayad dynasty.
Sunnis supported the Abbasid Caliphate, another hereditary dynasty.
Sunnis supported the Ottomans as Caliphs, another hereditary dynasty.

Over the years, some minor differences in rituals (the position of arms during prayer, time for breaking fast, funeral rites) have taken place between the two major divisions. But these differences also occur within each sect among their various offshoots.

Re: # 28

Salim bhai:

What are the differences between Shia and Sunni, for a non-religious person to understand?

....i think the best way to see how things will pan out in the future is to look at past trends.......most of them are quite clear, yet so many people totally ignore them........

1. no one has, historically, been able to defeat the afghans through an invasion and occupy their lands......the british tried it, the soviets tried it, pakistanis and iranis (?) kind of tried it.......based on this, it should be obvious that nato and usa are not going to be able to do it either........

hence we will soon be seeing a defeated nato coming out of afghanistan.......

2. it is nearly impossible for a structured military to defeat an insurgency, when the military is trying to occupy land.........the only successful example is in malaysia (?) with the brits (?).........all other occupations have failed......at best they have resulted in long term perpetual violence........at worst in all out defeat for the occupying country......french in algeria......soviets in afghanistan.......usa in vietnam.........pakistan in bangladesh.......india in kashmir........israel in lebanon..........israel in palestine.........russia in chechnya.......turkey in kurdistan.........

based on this, the americans were bound to be defeated in iraq......which is what has happened........though it was even a lot faster than i thought.......

3. any dictator, in a muslim country, who sides with the usa, will eventually, one day, get hanged by the usa at some point.........the reason is that sooner or later, the population of that country will rise up against the pro-usa policies of the dictator, thereby forcing the dictator to adopt anti-usa policies....or even more dangerously, anti-israel policy........or the dictator will over-extend himself, in trying to assist the usa, in its conflicts with other countries, thereby weakening himself in his own country............

shah in iran.......zia in pakistan.......saddam in iraq......noriega in panama.......mujahideen leaders in afghanistan........based on this trend, the next on the list are hosni in egypt.....sauds in saudi arabia.......the gulf shiekhs.........the king of jordan.....the leaders of lebanon......and most of all, our own musharraf....

.......the best policy is to niether be a friend of the us govt. nor be an enemy........one is screwed if one does either.......especially if one is a dictator........either your own population will hang you or the americans will.........rumsfeld shaking hands with saddam one day, and executing him the next is a very good example.......

........hence, the best thing for musharraf to do now is to distance himself from the usa and start doing what his own population wants him to do.......rather than waiting till the last second when he has to ditch the usa, in the fear of his own population overthrowing him......or he has to become anti-usa.........in both the later cases, he is screwed............if hilary clinton or borack obama don`t hang him then john mccain or qazi hussain (or nawaz sharif will).........

#31 masadi {``The people cannot be blamed for the decisions and doings of their elite especially when they have little or no control or representation, consciousness or organization``}

Masadi Sahib,
Eid Mubarak and Happy New Year to you, my friend. Now, as for who is to blame, don`t you agree that at some point, we Muslims need to take responsibility over our own environment? We can`t even remove, try, and hang our own criminals without the support of foreigners.
East Pakistani Bengalis had to resort to Indian interference to obtain their freedom and expel the West Pakistani oppressors. The poor people of Afghanistan had to wait for American interference (more like vengeance and retribution) to rid them of the horrible Tally Bans. The Somali government needed the help of mostly Christian Ethiopian army to drive out the crazy Islamic Courts Union thugs. The Soodis needed American (Christian and Jewish) forces to protect them from brotherly Ayrab and fellow-Sunni Muslim Sadman Houston. All the Stans (Kazakh, Kirghis, Uzbek, Tajik, Turkmen) and Azerbaijan needed Christian Russian and godless Communist Soviet occupation to drive their literacy figures into the 90%+ range.
Slavery is a state when others decide when, why, where, and how you live.

#31 Masadi, why should the people and the society not be blamed? the leaders do not come from a vaccum. pakistani leadership in not un-representative, it represents the will of many of its people. its only fair for pakistani people to take credit and blame for its leadership including the military. the leadership more or less is an outcome of overall social ethos.

Kulharee writes <<< Pakistanis, with blood of 3 million Bengalis on their hands, praising Saddam is like Hitler praising King Leopold as a righteous and moral man >>>

``Pakistanis`` are just as much guilty of the blood of 3 million Bengalis (the numbers that you throw out are still contested), as ``Americans`` are of killing tens of millions in their bloody history. Let us see you use the hitler analogy for them.

The people cannot be blamed for the decisions and doings of their elite especially when they have little or no control or representation, consciousness or organization, which is true both of Americans and Pakistanis but moreso for Pakistanis. But your perverted morality and propaganda spewing is incapable of understanding that...

paki hearts beat for saddam...

color me shocked...

there is no big lesson to be learnt, no legacy whatsoever. did bhutto`s hanging leave any ``legacy``? its naked tribalism begetting more tribalism. sure amricans will leanr a lesson from all this, but will the ummah?

#27, Kullee Payee,
I always use the name ``Sadman Houston`` for this tyrant because, as a believing Shiite, I do not want to refer to him by the name of the martyred grandson of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). ``Sadman`` describes him much better than ``Saddam`` which only means confrontational.

As for Pakis cheering or lamenting the execution, the preceding butchery, or the treatment of minorities, I totally agree with you. The way Pakistanis have treated their minorities, their majorities, and everyone in between should land every leader from that God awful Jinnah to Mushy Mushy Mush Mush and every pilfering, murdering, lying SOB in between in hell. There is nothing ``Pak`` about this country and nothing will cure it of its ills other than reunification with India.

Re: # 25

Salim Bhaijan, as much as I agree with you, I hope you are not looking for any similarities between Saddam and Houston. While Saddam was joyful to see the blood, Sam Houston refused an offer to put down the insurgence and he retired before the civil war. There is simply no comparison between the two. Unless, you mean to imply some oil connection of Saddam the son of a bytch and Houston, TX. Do you see how mind boggling it is to see the Paki Muslims talking about injustice in lands far away? Why can’t Pakis concentrate on Paki issues for a change? Inconsequential morons like Masadi and the author of this article is oh so brave to tell us all how bad the west is, while they will never have the balls to say anything about the butchery of 3 million Bengalis, and the injustices vetted to the religious minorities in their own countries. They are class-A certified wankers with their heads shoved in their own behinds.

Saddam might have been a tyrant, but he wasn`t a fundoo. And that means a lot.

I cursed him the day when he allowed himself to be captured alive. Here was this mofo, posing everywhere with guns and swords, who allowed millions of his countrymen die for his tomfoolery, his empty bravado; and when the crunch came, he didn`t even fire two shots in air. The least he owed to all those dead Iraqis, whoever they were, combatants or non-combatants, the least he owed to them was a shot through his own skull. But he gave himself up to them like a bloody rat, the b@stard. I cursed him when I saw those pics, may he rot in hell forever.

But now that he is dead and gone, I hope his soul rests in peace. May Allah or whichever god they swear by, may he give Iraqis the fortitude and sagacity to put him behind them. His hanging episode is an example of utter stupidity by the present govt. Such idiots will do more harm to Iraqis than ten Saddams could do together.

And for some grave-dancing gleeful Chowkies I would say only this : Respect death. You don`t know when it will come looking for you.

{``Saddam Hussein will be remembered as the lion that rose from Tikrit, the land of Salahuddin. Yes, the same Saladin, the Crusaders` nightmare. And that land will produce more like them.``}

Akber Sahib,
While I cannot, with a straight face, agree with your lavish and extremely generous eulogy to Sadman Houston, I can honestly understand what motivated you to write this. I have always despised this tyrant who is obviously guilty of so much. No single individual, with the possible exceptions of Genghis Khan, Hulagu Khan, and Mohammad Ali Jinnah, is responsible for more Muslim deaths than Sadman Houston. All of his victims were Muslim. All the countries that he voluntarily fought were Muslim. All of his ``victories`` were against Muslims. The deaths of half a million Shiite Eye Ranians, hundreds of thousands of Eye Racki Arab Shiites, thousands of Eye Racki Sunni Kurds, and numerous Kuwaiti Sunni Arabs make him a truly equal opportunity murderer of Muslims. This man squandered billions of dollars of Eye Rack wealth for the destruction of Eye Ran, Eye Rack, and Kuwait. This man set back the cause of Arab freedom by at least two generations. This man, who mocked God by putting ``Allahu Akbar`` on the Eye Racki flag as a cheap means to gather favor, was about as sincere and pious as the lice in his hair when he was discovered in his hellhole by American forces.

Having said that, the manner in which he was ``tried,`` and worse, lynched, reaffirms my faith that given the opportunity, Muslims and especially Arabs, will always do the wrong thing. There was no need to ``execute`` Sadman Houston. He was already weak, already humiliated, and already refuted. The spectacle caught by someone`s cell phone camera depicts a brave man - calm, resolute, defiant, and respectably taking his ``punishment`` with dignity, grace, and patience. Conversely, his hooded tormentors appeared to be acting like cowards - hyena-like in their stupid sounds of ``Muqtada, Muqtada, Muqtada.`` What this tragedy of errors betrayed was that maybe, just maybe, Sadman Houston was slightly justified in liquidating these vengeful, violent, and venomous Eye Racki Shiite militiamen. This was not a good day for Eye Rack, for Shiaism, for Islam, for Arabs, or for the future.
Good article.