Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Justifying Saddam!

A part of an article by Rola Kharsa in Al Masry Al Youm newspaper (link: triggered an important question...
Read it and lets think of this...

وتاريخ العراق مليء بالدماء لذلك كان لا بد لمن يحكم أن يتوقع الانقلابات في كل ثانية، وأن يدير شؤون البلاد بيد من حديد. سمعت كثيرا عن جرائم ارتكبها صدام حسين كانت أشبه بالأساطير، مثل قتله معارضيه وإعدامهم، أو حتي قتله صهريه بعد فرارهما إلي الأردن وعودتهما بعد أن وعدهما بالأمان، وحنث بالوعد،

As it says, Iraq has a very bloody history full of coupes and assassinations.
Now, here's the question...

If you were in Office (being the President of Iraq) and someone tried to assassinate you (think Al Dujail case, where She'a people tried to kill him in their village when he was there on a visit) or tried to do a coupe against you (think Al Anfaal case or Halabja, when Kurds rebelled against the Iraqi Gov.), wouldn't you punish anyone involved?
In other words, wouldn't you as the President be obliged to get rid of anyone who wanted to do such a thing?

Any constitution gives the government the right to punish anyone who tries to harm the country in anyway (including assassinations and coupes against the President). So, why do people say that Saddam was wrong when he punished people who did the above incidents for instance?

What i wrote above crossed my mind when i read the article. Not only me though... some people have actually said this to defend Saddam's acts (Moustafa Bakri rings a bell?). But when i think of it more...

Yes, he as a President has the right to punish anyone evolved...but, not without trial!
Although if you think of it, even if there was one, Saddam's regime would have made sure all got executed!

The tricky one is the coupe, how can a large group of people rebel against you and you not go to war to stop their rebel act?! it is almost impossible!

After wondering for a few minutes... the answer to resolve the pain of thinking for an answer popped into my head....
"If he was a fair man, non of this would have happened!" .... or would it?

By the way, I am against everything this man did.

Mood: Thinking...


OpeRon® said...

I do agree with you, however, being a dictatorial.. I think he deserves what has been done to'm ..

I am an anti-violence person .. and I am against determining a nationwide destiny upon one man's decision..

Dictators has done humanity no good since dawn of history .. why would it make any difference now ?

But, watchin the execution feed, I realized that the iraqi did nothing but making him a martyr!.. Disappointing!

Fadfadation said...

You're right...
In a moment of stupidity by the Iraqi government made people sympathies with him.

To tell you the truth, i felt for the guy by the way the execution took place (not that he didn;t deserve the sentence, but the way was disgusting). That is of course besides the awful timing (Eid day) :(

Nag said...

boss, there are a number of issues involved that might actually have "forced" people to sort of sympathize with him on an unconscious level keda..
First, Iraq was _always_ a land of violence.. ya3ni if you notice the trend, you will see that there are some lands that are always troubled.. as opposed to Egypt for instance, where there were "some" violence, wars, disturbance, but majority was rather peaceful (even in occupation time).. Ever since eternity back in Nebuchadrezzar biblical times, then El Hussein and his sons, and on from them.. I dont think geography should "justify" violence.. but it certainly is a factor..
Second thing was the way they executed him.. he was considered a POW i think, so they shouldve complied to his request of death by gunshot..

The issue with Saddam was not oppressing opposition as much as genocide.. you can punish someone for rebelling against you as a leader, but you dont kill whole families like he did..

anyway, nothing makes much sense anyway..

Fadfadation said...

Do you think it's geography or is it the people who leave in an area?

i mean that if my family is violent and lives somewhere, i don't think being violent has anything to do with where they live... i think violence comes from within.

Although on a second thought, if you watch closely the effect of traffic jams on people in the streets (Cairo), you'll notice that the overall environment around us causes changes in behavior. mmmm... interesting.

The war prisoner part is a very valid point.
Do you know that the iraq gov. said he was a prisoner not a POW.
OF course that is clear lying because till the morning of the execution he was in the custody of the he was practically a POW.

El moshkela (the usual moshkel) is that Arab leaders are silent!

i333 ya3ny :(

Nag said...

hmmm.. I tried to google the idea of "geography of violence" but most results were USSR-related..

Let me re-state my argument.. If your "violent" family moves somewhere, then this is out of my argument.. What I'm talking about is this: do you know how we sometimes refer to a certain nationality or origin as being hot-blooded or "dammo 7ami"? this is what i mean.. Due to certain factors -one of which is geography- people adopt certain qualities..

This also explains some stereotypes we have in the Arab world.. such as Egyptians like to complain (can attribute it to unequal distribution of resources: the neighboring land is closer to the nile than i am, etc), Palestinians are ambitious in work and study (but in their case it is the lack of geography that caused it), lebanese like farfasha (they have snow, beaches, greenery), Gulf (they have oil)..
In Iraq case, they were blessed with many natural resources + Iraqi people are hot blooded..

I just think its a possibility :)

Nag said...

and of course your traffic example.. hard living conditions create violence..

Fadfadation said...

You know, what you were talking about made me think of something...

Wouldn't it be a bless if our "future" president would be a socio-economist or something.

I'd like a non-military man to take control. Especially, one who studied sociology...

I think we need something like that.

Ditto said...

Totally agree with the socio-economic president, maybe with a little psychology background thrown in... and a whole lot of common sense (which is not common LOL)... there is really no use for a military person as long as the country continues US hands & feet :)