Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/6/06 11:24 PM, mofomojo wrote: Apparently, a lot of Iraqis actually liked Iraq under a dictatorship, they say that Saddam was a strong leader.

As opposed to how many who are happy with the verdict?

Really says a lot when almost all of his own people are happy he is most likely going to hang. About the only people who are not satisfied are the palestinians, only because they didn't live under Saddam and that Saddam launched missles into Israel...

Maybe some people don't want or can't handle democracy. Most people in Iraq have voted purely religiously, and what does that do? It polarizes and paralyzes the nation and forces it into chaos. That's not good. Not very good at all..

Way to be an idiot. I salute your stupidity.

At 11/7/06 12:02 AM, JoS wrote: Alot of Iraqis actually want him back. Not that they loved raped rooms and shit, but because Iraq was alot safer than it is now.

Way to not look at the world on how it really works! I salute you as well!

your an immature idiot, the best thing to do is to let saddam rot in prison for a while So the fucking suni's DONT start a huge war.

At 11/7/06 12:02 AM, JoS wrote: Alot of Iraqis actually want him back. Not that they loved raped rooms and shit, but because Iraq was alot safer than it is now

Yeah its shocking, I don't think they can only handle the fear

At 11/7/06 12:12 AM, Integrity wrote:

At 11/7/06 12:02 AM, JoS wrote: Alot of Iraqis actually want him back. Not that they loved raped rooms and shit, but because Iraq was alot safer than it is now.

Way to not look at the world on how it really works! I salute you as well!

You mean the ability to go back in time? Several poll shaev foudn a large number of Iraqis if they had to chosoe between what they had with Saddam and what tehy have now they woudl pick what they had before the US came.

And he held elections, just he was the only one on the ballet.

At 11/7/06 12:25 AM, JoS wrote:

And he held elections, just he was the only one on the ballet.

Hurray for JOS! Defending one murderous dictator at a time!

Yeah, get some real coverage instead of msn or cnn.

*salute*

At 11/7/06 12:25 AM, JoS wrote:

At 11/7/06 12:12 AM, Integrity wrote:

At 11/7/06 12:02 AM, JoS wrote: Alot of Iraqis actually want him back. Not that they loved raped rooms and shit, but because Iraq was alot safer than it is now.

Way to not look at the world on how it really works! I salute you as well!

You mean the ability to go back in time? Several poll shaev foudn a large number of Iraqis if they had to chosoe between what they had with Saddam and what tehy have now they woudl pick what they had before the US came.

And he held elections, just he was the only one on the ballet.

In the picture you posted it said that Saddam Hussein was: "Elected unanimously by the people of Iraq"

Which was completely wrong no matter how you interpret that.

At 11/7/06 12:31 AM, Techware wrote:

At 11/7/06 12:25 AM, JoS wrote:

And he held elections, just he was the only one on the ballet.

Hurray for JOS! Defending one murderous dictator at a time!

Yeah, get some real coverage instead of msn or cnn.

*salute*

BBC real enough fo ryou? I fyou would like I could find you something peer-reviewed as well, maybe from Foriegn Affairs or some other journal? I study this stuff, I dont use MSN for my information. But perhaps you woudl suggest I go to FOX NEWS for my info?

At 11/7/06 12:31 AM, Techware wrote:

At 11/7/06 12:25 AM, JoS wrote:

And he held elections, just he was the only one on the ballet.

Hurray for JOS! Defending one murderous dictator at a time!

Yeah, get some real coverage instead of msn or cnn.

*salute*

THat wouldn't be Fox News. They are the most biased of them all.

At 11/7/06 01:09 AM, SuperKooter wrote:

At 11/7/06 12:31 AM, Techware wrote:

At 11/7/06 12:25 AM, JoS wrote:

And he held elections, just he was the only one on the ballet.

Hurray for JOS! Defending one murderous dictator at a time!

Yeah, get some real coverage instead of msn or cnn.

*salute*

THat wouldn't be Fox News. They are the most biased of them all.

No they are just labeled that way by people whose only point of reference to judge FOX against is the monopoly of LIBERAL-owned News agencies such as CNN, MSN, ABC, CBS, NBC and so forth.

Of course FOX is considered to be biased when it is actually the only conservative-owned news organization in the mainstream, compared to the host of INCREDIBLY BIASED liberal news that people are used to and swallow as fact.

FOX news is no more biased than any other News channel. It just provides a different predominant viewpoint, therefore misguided liberals will pretend that FOX is the only biased news channel

It's funny to single out Fox, meanwhile NBC, CNN, and ABC are all owned by DEMOCRATS. In fact, the owned of CNN, Ted Turner, was the single largest private donator to the Democratic party in 2004. Yet magically his bias and political favoring doesn't trickle down to the news that his tightly-controlled company spreads to the world?

Interesting.

At 11/7/06 01:15 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: No they are just labeled that way by people whose only point of reference to judge FOX against is the monopoly of LIBERAL-owned News agencies such as CNN, MSN, ABC, CBS, NBC and so forth.

Actually Im from canada so I dont reeally watch any of those. I watch the CBC and the BBC.

Of course FOX is considered to be biased when it is actually the only conservative-owned news organization in the mainstream, compared to the host of INCREDIBLY BIASED liberal news that people are used to and swallow as fact.

Use of capital letters does not make your arguement any better. Explain to me Glenn Beck getting a job on CNN. He is a very conservative person, but he gets a job on the "incredibly biased liberal news".

FOX news is no more biased than any other News channel. It just provides a different predominant viewpoint, therefore misguided liberals will pretend that FOX is the only biased news channel

FOX News is far more biased then any other news station. The fact it also trys to portray itslef as "fair and balanced" makes it even worse.

It's funny to single out Fox, meanwhile NBC, CNN, and ABC are all owned by DEMOCRATS. In fact, the owned of CNN, Ted Turner, was the single largest private donator to the Democratic party in 2004. Yet magically his bias and political favoring doesn't trickle down to the news that his tightly-controlled company spreads to the world?

You alos forgot to mention that Disneys Chairman (which owns ABC) is the former Senate Majority leader for the Dems up untill 1995, and was offered a job on the SC by Clinton. ABC also fired Bill Myher for citizing President Bush on his show. So tell me how this bias bleeds intot he very fabric of the bias new on the left?

Interesting.

Quite.

I bet this makes Bush happy, he hasn't executed someone in quite some time, I bet he's feelin all giddy right now.

It proves that he isn't getting prefferential treatment to your average Iraqi criminal.

Saddam requested a firing squad.

At 11/7/06 08:52 AM, ZeroAsALimit wrote: It proves that he isn't getting prefferential treatment to your average Iraqi criminal.

Saddam requested a firing squad.

He also asked for an international inquiry into the signatures on the Dujail death warrants, but was refused.

At 11/7/06 01:15 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 11/7/06 01:09 AM, SuperKooter wrote:

At 11/7/06 12:31 AM, Techware wrote:

At 11/7/06 12:25 AM, JoS wrote:

And he held elections, just he was the only one on the ballet.

Hurray for JOS! Defending one murderous dictator at a time!

Yeah, get some real coverage instead of msn or cnn.

*salute*

THat wouldn't be Fox News. They are the most biased of them all.

No they are just labeled that way by people whose only point of reference to judge FOX against is the monopoly of LIBERAL-owned News agencies such as CNN, MSN, ABC, CBS, NBC and so forth.

Of course FOX is considered to be biased when it is actually the only conservative-owned news organization in the mainstream, compared to the host of INCREDIBLY BIASED liberal news that people are used to and swallow as fact.

FOX news is no more biased than any other News channel. It just provides a different predominant viewpoint, therefore misguided liberals will pretend that FOX is the only biased news channel

It's funny to single out Fox, meanwhile NBC, CNN, and ABC are all owned by DEMOCRATS. In fact, the owned of CNN, Ted Turner, was the single largest private donator to the Democratic party in 2004. Yet magically his bias and political favoring doesn't trickle down to the news that his tightly-controlled company spreads to the world?

Interesting.

NBC is owned by GE (Republican) CNN is oned by Time Warner (republican, ted turner isn't even in charge of anything at cnn anymore) ABC owned by disney (Repblican and they were the ones that tried to smear clintonw with that biased docudrama)

Fox news is owned by Rupert Murdoch a big wig repug and run by Roger AIles nixons press secretary.

It shows how unhinged your rightwingers are that every new network is liberal except for Fox News. Don't you people know how foolish you people sound?

Also on top of that they mislead their idiot viewers about iraq. They claim all attacks are done by terrorist when in reality it is because of a civil war not al qaida.

Bullshit. Was he at least judjed in Iraq?
Only iraqian people can deside what to do with him.

And hanging is immoral. I wish Bush would feel it.

Saddam IS being hung? I thought that it was just a rumor my classmates made up. Poor Saddam. He's going to be killed for crimes he didn't commit. He deserves death but not for this. And we wonder why everyone hates America! Sciencedammit. This just proves that America has become extremely corrupt since Bush became President. Not everyone in America is a pig-dog bastard but that's how the world sees us now. After college I'm moving to Amsterdam or something. I can't stay in America if it's going to be like this. At this rate if other countries aren't going to kill us all than our government surely will.

How Not To Make A Martyr

Whatever you do, don't put a former leader in a farcical, one-sided joke of a trial for the deaths of 147 people when statistics are saying 655,000 of his former people have been killed by the so-called "liberators" who also give you the least democratic Democracy this side of Westminster, fire judges for being "too lenient", then decide to get to the verdict anyway and say they should be hung.

That could be exceptionally stupid.

At 11/7/06 04:08 PM, D2KVirus wrote: How Not To Make A Martyr

Whatever you do, don't put a former leader in a farcical, one-sided joke of a trial for the deaths of 147 people when statistics are saying 655,000 of his former people have been killed by the so-called "liberators" who also give you the least democratic Democracy this side of Westminster, fire judges for being "too lenient", then decide to get to the verdict anyway and say they should be hung.

That could be exceptionally stupid.

Well said. I too found it sad that Saddam is being executed for killing 147 people, when in a single day of fighting 1200 "insurgents" are killed. No doubt that Saddam was a dangerous coldblooded killer and in short an insult to humanity, but still this trial feels like a big farce.

Luckily, with the sunnis and the sjiites differing so much in opinion about Saddam, executing him in the lowliest form possible will settle the differences. After all, when there's no more Saddam, they can't argue about that any longer. Foolproof logic.

I can't wait until they post the video of his execution on youtube.com.

I suggest making slits in his eyes and all over to him and make him soak in a bath of bubbing alcohal. Then have burned from the feet up and make him listen to modern rap.

Well considering that none of us have the power to change this ruling at all, and that this is what the Iraqi want, we leave it as it is.

At 11/7/06 02:17 PM, Anti-punk wrote: Bullshit. Was he at least judjed in Iraq?
Only iraqian people can deside what to do with him.

And hanging is immoral. I wish Bush would feel it.

What are you on?

And he was tried in Iraqi court.

At 11/7/06 04:08 PM, D2KVirus wrote: How Not To Make A Martyr

I think you're giving the Iraqi people far too little credit. You're assuming that his death will somehow propel him to God-like status among the nation.

I highly doubt that to be the case, considering:

1. The bulk of his army surrendered without a fight. Where was the loyalty then, if he has such a high standing among his people?

2. Immediately following our entry into the country, Baghdad specifically, Saddam's statues were overthrown. Everyone remember people beating the statues with their shoes? Not real indicative of a man who is supposedly going to be regarded as a Saint after death....

3. The objective of the insurgency is to remove the US from the country. There's a big difference between the insurgents and pro-Saddamists, who wish to see Saddam back in power.

4. Al-Qaeda and Saddam were not on the best of terms. If bin Laden kicked it, I'm sure the fanaticism within his group would propel him to martyr status. But the Republican Guard and most of his supporters are dead, in hiding, or defected. Everyone else hated his guts......

I'd like a clear explanation as to how Saddam will somehow rise from the grave as this high and mighty savior and martyr.......cause I just don't see that happening.....

At 11/7/06 12:54 AM, JoS wrote: BBC real enough fo ryou? I fyou would like I could find you something peer-reviewed as well, maybe from Foriegn Affairs or some other journal? I study this stuff, I dont use MSN for my information. But perhaps you woudl suggest I go to FOX NEWS for my info?

JoS, from your own link:

"If the Americans did attack, Iraq had taken precautions to defeat them, Mr Ibrahim said.

We're going to fight them in every village and every house - even the shepherd will have a role in the battle, he said. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stor ies/april/9/newsid_3502000/3502633.stm

"As the statue fell to the ground at last, the crowd surged forward and jumped on it.
Chanting and jeering, they danced on the fallen effigy, kicking it and hitting it with their shoes
in a symbolic gesture of contempt as it was torn to pieces.
They then severed the head, tied chains around it, and dragged it through the streets. "

So much for fighting to the last man eh?

At 11/6/06 08:09 PM, troubles1 wrote: he was tried by the IRAQI court , and therefore whatever the decided was to put an individual to death should be left up to the ideals of that country.

I second that. And I honestly don't care how much he suffers. There are plenty of people who I would call bastards in this world that get by without awful deaths. Not that I always think its right, but US citizens really have no reasons to press for a harsher penalty to bring down "justice." He's going to be put to death, and leave it at that. The United States could do well without an image of brutaly executing its enemies.

And BTW, to the person who said hanging is outdated, its still legal in some states in the U.S, same goes for firing squad.

At 11/7/06 02:11 PM, SuperKooter wrote:

NBC is owned by GE (Republican) CNN is oned by Time Warner (republican, ted turner isn't even in charge of anything at cnn anymore) ABC owned by disney (Repblican and they were the ones that tried to smear clintonw with that biased docudrama)

Everything you just said was wrong. Congratulations, you are a pathological liar.

A) NBC's chairman and CEO is Bob Wright who is a self-described "liberal" and who personally gave donations to John Kerry's presidentional compaign. Therefore he is supportive of Democrats! NBC isn't owned or managed by GE, GE just happens to be the largest stock owner, this doesn't mean GE's Republican chairman has any influence on the bias of the news that comes out of NBC or its conglobmerate MSNBC which is coowned by Microsoft whose chairman and current CEO is Paul Allen who is a Democrat, because Bill Gates retired.

B) CNN is owned by Turner broadcasting and Time Warner both. Turner productions is owned by Ted Turner (who was the biggest single donator to the Democratic party in 2004) and Time Warner is owned and lead by Richard Parsons, Wayne Pace, and and Jeffery Bewkes. All 3 of which are democrats.

C) ABC is owned by Disney Corporation, which is owned by by Robery Iger who is a self-described independent. However the NEWS portion of the coproration is ABC-Disney television group which is CEOed by Anne Sweeny, a Democrat.

Fox news is owned by Rupert Murdoch a big wig repug and run by Roger AIles nixons press secretary.

Rupert Murdoch, an Australian owns News Corporation which owns Fox News. But Fox news is CEOed by Roger Ailes who is a Republican.

You see, every news channel is controlled by politically biased people, and most of these are controlled by Democrat-supporting, highly-liberal individuals. Fox is in the minority because of its convervative chairmen.

This doesn't make Fox news the only biased news channel, it makes it the only news channel that has a DIFFERENT bias than the other news channels.

It shows how unhinged your rightwingers are that every new network is liberal except for Fox News. Don't you people know how foolish you people sound?

You simply didn't know what the fuck you were talking about. See how foolish it is for someone to start claiming things that are completely untrue just so that they can salvage an irrational criticism of Fox news? All while giving immunity to the other news corporations that are owned by equally biased individuals?

Criticising the US government is anti-American?

At 11/7/06 12:02 AM, JoS wrote: Alot of Iraqis actually want him back. Not that they loved raped rooms and shit, but because Iraq was alot safer than it is now.

Why do modern liberals support dictators as long as their citizens agree democratically to comit attrocities, and when congress in the United States votes unanimously to halt stem-cell research it's a crime against humanity?

Seriously, I'd love an answer.

You fools, Nancy Pelosi is two heartbeats away from the presidency!