Saturday, December 30, 2006

Peasant to President to Pauper

December 30, 2006.
Today civilised society committed a cold blooded murder. A man of 60 odd years was hung by the neck till he died, in a very deliberate, premeditated act. The powers deemed it an act of justice, as Saddam Hussein's life was brought to an end for the killing of 148 people in 1982, among other inhuman acts.

Now why didn't the long arm of the law (read United States) get hold of Saddam then? It wasn't a profitable time for Big Brother to act. So the self-appointed conscience of the world slipped its hands into its pockets and watched - the wars, the massacres, the killing of innocents...

Till Saddam became a threat. So out came the hands, years later, holding a noose with the Iraqi dictator's name on it. It scares me to think that America and its allies can walk into another country, hang its head-of-state and put another in his place. And get away with it. Saddam and Iraq today. Who next?

How different is America from the terrorists who kill innocents and send video evidence to news channels? How different is George Bush with Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay to his discredit from the barbaric Saddam Hussein?

I have never been able to accept killing. On one hand it's called murder. On the other it's the death penalty. Makes no difference. Taking life is an abhorrent act. Saddam Hussein did it. Now it's George Bush.

A few years ago, a cowboy rode out after Osama bi Laden. He returned with Saddam Hussein. One dictator is dead. Who will stop the other?

Robert Fisk: A dictator created then destroyed by America


Cerberus Nathanael said...

Though I realize that the Trial was a total sham, I think this execution was justified considering the kind of bloodshed that Saddam's regime was responsible for in the past. It is sad that other world dictators like Pinochet and Pol Pot escaped this fate. When you refer to him as "Head of State" you whitewash the sinister system that held him in place- this was not a man who rose to power by democratic means; he was a despot who ruled the land with an iron fist and a brutal state police machine.

I do not support the US intervention in Iraq, but I have little sympathy for the late Saddam Hussein.

Fictitioustruth said...

Taking cue from classic debate "Do means justify the end", if this is an example the resounding answer would be no. The objective of peace cannot be based on more bloodshed. By the same token Bush should be hanged for killing thousands of civilians in Iraq, Afgainsthan. He cannot be the representative of peace standing on a mountain of corpses of innocent. And Saddam was a criminal by whose standards, the society of which he was the by-product or the new dictat which the west is forcing on the world. Understanding the realities of the individual is critical before deciding the punishment. My sympathy is with the late Saddam Hussain. He did not deserve this end but hats off to him for embracing it gracefully befitting the image he created for himself.