Saddam is dead....

[CCGirl]

458. The execution of Saddam (12/30/06)

Saddam was executed yesterday. It was arranged by Neocon. It is a strategy step of their Mid-east war plan.
The Iraq government is a puppet of the US. The execution of Saddam must be approved by its master(or ordered by) - Bush administration. Why do they perform such an execution in current situation?

The Neocon's plan in Mid-east is bigger than the Iraq war. After Iraq, the next target is Iran and Syria. To prepare for the Iran and Syria war, US troops must stay in Iraq. That's why we saw there was a continued riot in Iraq. America people are tired of this unjust war. It's them who paid money and lives for it. What's the tactic Bush uses to deal with them? He said if US withdraw from Iraq, then terrorists win and US loses. No people want to admit they support terrorist, no people want to be cowards. Bush uses patriotism to halt anti-war movement.

What excuse the Neocon use to have US troops staying in Iraq? Insurgence and riot. Although some people said Iraq war is like Vietnam war, it is not. There were two big countries: Soviet Union and China behind the Vietnam. It was their support of weapons and economic aids which helped North Vietnam to win the war. There was none such support for Iraq. Iran and Syria, are much weaker and smaller than Soviet Union and China then. They themselves know they are the next target of the Neocon. They dare not to offend US by supporting the Iraq insurgence. To stay in Iraq, Neocon try to make a mess in Iraq - they need a civil war of Iraq.

Al Qaida is a tool of US intelligence. The 911 attack was carried out in the name of Al Qaida. The purpose was to justify the Mid-east war. It succeeded. To provoke a civil war in Iraq, Al Qaida was once again involved.

The conflict between Sunni and Shiiti in Iraq was provoked by the bombing of a Shiiti Muslim Shirine by Al Qaida.

Al Qaida then helped Sunni Muslim in a series of conflict with Shiiti. The purpose is to push for a civil war.

You can view Saddam as a shrine of Sunni Muslim. Kill Saddam is to pour oil on a fire. It will flame a civil war.

America people voted Democratic Party to the House on the hope that the Congress can help US army withdraw from Iraq. Now with this strategy step, Bush will say, the situation is worsen. On contrary, we need more troops there instead of withdraw. A draft may be revived.

The next target in Neocon's map is Iran and Syria. For the coming war, US army has to stay in Iraq. To justify the staying, Neocon needs a riot in Iraq. Saddam's death is one step to reach this goal. Any politicians with brain know the execution at this time will stir the storm not calm it.

(Though Syria and Saudi may be treated as allies in Neocon's plan to deal with Iran, it is only temporary. Remember Saddam also once was an ally of US when he was used to fight against Iran. )

Re:
Quote, "Behind the Cheney Trip to Riyadh
(Reprinted with permission of Executive Intelligence Review)
by Jeffrey Steinberg

Nov. 27, 2006 (EIRNS)-A well-placed and highly reliable source has provided the following account of Vice President Dick Cheney's Nov. 25, 2006 visit to Saudi Arabia.
The essential message delivered to Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah by Vice President Cheney was that there is no basis for dialogue with Iran. The U.S. position in the region has been weakened, and therefore a new security architecture must be established, particularly in the Persian Gulf, to contain and counter Iran's growing influence. Already, NATO has been in dialogue with Qatar and Kuwait, in pursuit of closer, upgraded cooperation. Cheney proposed to establish a new regional balance of power, through a Sunni Arab alliance with Israel, to confront the Iranian threat. Cheney argued that to negotiate with Iran at this time would be tantamount to surrender. A new military organization will be built, involving the Gulf Cooperation Council states, Egypt, and Jordan. NATO and the United States will be closely involved, and Israel will be a de facto participant. These moves led by Cheney obviously aim to pre-empt adoption by the Bush Administration of any recommendations from the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group, to initiate diplomatic talks with Iran.

Cheney took the lead in proposing this new security architecture. There is, at this point, a consensus inside the Bush Administration to pursue this policy. When President Bush arrives later this week in Amman, Jordan, to meet with Iraq's Prime Minister Maliki, he may also hold secret talks with several senior Syrian officials. In that meeting, President Bush will bluntly offer Syria the opportunity to break its ties to Iran and join in the emerging Sunni Arab bloc.

The approach to Syria coincides with a major effort, within Lebanon, to force Michel Aoun to break his alliance with Hezbollah, in the wake of the assassination of Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel. Over the weekend, there was a meeting of leading Maronites, sponsored by Patriarch Sfeir, aimed at tightening the pressure on Aoun to break with Hezbollah, and join a Sunni Arab, Christian, Druze coalition to counter Hezbollah's power. Were the Syrians to accept the Bush offer (highly unlikely), they would be expected to pressure Hezbollah to disarm, as a condition for negotiations to get the Golan Heights back from Israel.

Condi Rice's planned meeting with Mahmoud Abbas and Ehud Olmert is aimed at kick-starting the Israeli-Palestinian talks. But the key to the Israeli policy will be to complete the construction of the wall, and to build similar walls of separation along the border with Lebanon. The argument is that both Hamas and Hezbollah represent extensions of Iran's influence into the areas bordering on Israel, and they must be contained. The "peace" offer being put on the table will center on these walls of separation.
Iran is already aware of these Cheney-led initiatives. While Arab governments will assume that Iran will react and respond to the attempt to create this Sunni Arab-U.S.-Israel security architecture to confront Iran by playing for sectarian conflict in Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere, sources caution that Iran is taking a more sophisticated view. Recurring statements by President Ahmadinejad are calculated to instigate an Israeli attack on Iran's purported nuclear weapons sites. Iran anticipates some kind of attack on these sites-either by the United States or Israel. Iran would prefer an Israeli attack for several reasons. First, the United States has far more significant military capabilities to strike Iran than Israel does.

Second, any Israeli attack on a Muslim country would trigger a revolt on the Arab streets. Iran carefully studied the response of the population throughout the Persian Gulf and Arab world to the Israeli attacks on Lebanon this summer. They anticipate massive Arab support, across the sectarian Shi'ite-Sunni divide, for Iran, in the event of an Israeli strike.

http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/press_releases

Excellent post!!! Reps!

 

[JPPT1974]

Never thought that this day would happen?
Did you all?

 

[Shakespeare]

All sin is disobedience to God. That is, after all, what makes it a sin in the first place. Why is murder a sin? Because God declared it to be so. Why is covetousness a sin? Because God declared it to be so. Sin is disobedience, and in God's eyes, all sin is equal. There are not different "levels" of sin; some people are not in need of more salvation than others. We are all of us, to the last man woman and child, you, me, the guy down the street, the little girl eating ice cream on a park bench, and, yes, Saddam Hussein, abhorent in God's eyes due to the stain of sin on us. I am not saying that Saddam was as "good" as a Christinan, merely that a Christian is not "better" in God's eyes. What makes us acceptable in His eyes is the righetousness conveyed to humans by the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ, not our own actions or behaviors. It is God who makes us acceptable in His eyes.

We are all miserable sinners in need of salvation. Hussein was not worse than me, I am not better than Hussein. I have only stopped rejecting the forgivness of God, but that makes all the difference. It is not me that God sees when he looks into my soul, but the perfection I have been gifted by Christ and His sacrifice. To say that I am "better" than Hussein would be to say that there is something about me that is better. There isn't. I am a sinner, abhorent in God's eyes, just as Hussein was. Yes, Hussein was evil. All human beings are evil; we carry within us the seed of sin from before we draw our first breath. He was not better or worse in God's eyes than any other disobedient, wicked child, which describes us all. We are made pure by God, for God, not by ourselves or our actions.

It is not my intention to be confrontational. Please do not think I am attacking anyone here. I merely believe that it is wrong to celebrate the death of any human being, regardless of who that human being may be, and to celebrate the death of a human being who so obviously did not accept the saving grace of Christ is to celebrate the damning of a soul to Hell. I will not celebrate the damnation of a soul. For all any of us know, Hussein might not have been beyond redemption. If Paul can be redeemed, if I can be redeemed, anyone can be redeemed. What would the world be like now if the Sanhedrin has succeeded in their plots to have Paul executed? What would the church look like today?

It was not necessary to kill this man to defeat the evil that he pressed upon the world. The trial conducted would never have been permitted in a US court of law. It was biased and established to reach a conviction, not to reach truth. While in this case, the conviction certainly was the truth, why did those in power feel it necessary to "rig" it? Why change judges when it looked like the current judge might not be as "anti-Saddam" as they thought? Why change the rules of the proceedings six times? Why not let the truth be the truth?

Did he "deserve" to die? Well, that's a hard question. Certainly his actions were immoral, and he certainly seemed to have no remorse for them, but did mean he deserved to die? This is a subjective issue, and there is no clear and easy answer, some will say, "Yes, absolutely," and others will say, "No, absolutely not," and they will both essentially be arguing from the same reasoning. All I know is that I am not without sin, and therefore I will not cast that first stone. My Savior instructed me to return hatred with love, to return violence with compassion. He instructed me quite clearly to treat others as I would like to be treated, not to treat them as they are treating me. He left me no room for interpretation there. He did not say to do this "unless what the other person did is really bad," or "unless I really want to," or "unless the other person is evil and deserves it." He was quite clear in his teaching, and I believe you can't cherry-pick the teachings of Christ. You either accept them all, or you accept none of them.

Again, it is not my intention to attack anyone or make anyone feel they are being attacked, please do not interpret my words in that fashion. But I am reminded of the words of Ghandi: "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians, they are so unlike your Christ." If we as Christians wish to avoid that perception, we have to strive to act like our Christ.

Peace be with all of you, and I pray for your prosperity, health, happiness, and faithfulness in the coming year.

 

[RigalCygnos]

9 December 2006

"Jeremiah's fall into the clutches of a cult started with a trip to Germany to take part in an anti-war rally to protest over the impending bombardment of Iraq. In late January 2003 outside the British Institute in Paris, where Jeremiah was studying, he bought a newspaper called Nouvelle SolidaritŽ which appealed to his belief that war in Iraq would be misguided.

Unknown to him at the time, the paper is published by an organisation, run by US millionaire and anti-semitic conspiracy theorist Lyndon LaRouche, with whom Jerry would spent his final days.​

Described as "sinister and dangerous" by British police, the LaRouche network targets the young and disillusioned, loitering outside universities across Europe.​

"It was just before the invasion of Iraq. Jerry was terribly upset about it and he wanted to do something," says Erica. "Then he came across this newspaper that was full of anti-war stuff and he believed in it totally."​

"...when he arrived, Jerry found that instead of an anti-war rally, he was in the midst of a conference called How To Reconstruct A Bankrupt World. Organised by the LaRouche youth movement, which critics claim uses brainwashing to bend people to its theories, its speakers included LaRouche himself."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_hea...objectid=18235456&siteid=94762-name_page.html


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/cult/larouche/main.htm

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lyndon_LaRouche

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche

Excellent post!!! Reps!

Reps for Lyndon LaRouche? Must have missed reading my post....

 

[RigalCygnos]

All sin is disobedience to God. That is, after all, what makes it a sin in the first place. Why is murder a sin? Because God declared it to be so. Why is covetousness a sin? Because God declared it to be so. Sin is disobedience, and in God's eyes, all sin is equal. There are not different "levels" of sin; some people are not in need of more salvation than others. We are all of us, to the last man woman and child, you, me, the guy down the street, the little girl eating ice cream on a park bench, and, yes, Saddam Hussein, abhorent in God's eyes due to the stain of sin on us. I am not saying that Saddam was as "good" as a Christinan, merely that a Christian is not "better" in God's eyes. What makes us acceptable in His eyes is the righetousness conveyed to humans by the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ, not our own actions or behaviors. It is God who makes us acceptable in His eyes.

We are all miserable sinners in need of salvation. Hussein was not worse than me, I am not better than Hussein. I have only stopped rejecting the forgivness of God, but that makes all the difference. It is not me that God sees when he looks into my soul, but the perfection I have been gifted by Christ and His sacrifice. To say that I am "better" than Hussein would be to say that there is something about me that is better. There isn't. I am a sinner, abhorent in God's eyes, just as Hussein was. Yes, Hussein was evil. All human beings are evil; we carry within us the seed of sin from before we draw our first breath. He was not better or worse in God's eyes than any other disobedient, wicked child, which describes us all. We are made pure by God, for God, not by ourselves or our actions.

It is not my intention to be confrontational. Please do not think I am attacking anyone here. I merely believe that it is wrong to celebrate the death of any human being, regardless of who that human being may be, and to celebrate the death of a human being who so obviously did not accept the saving grace of Christ is to celebrate the damning of a soul to Hell. I will not celebrate the damnation of a soul. For all any of us know, Hussein might not have been beyond redemption. If Paul can be redeemed, if I can be redeemed, anyone can be redeemed. What would the world be like now if the Sanhedrin has succeeded in their plots to have Paul executed? What would the church look like today?

It was not necessary to kill this man to defeat the evil that he pressed upon the world. The trial conducted would never have been permitted in a US court of law. It was biased and established to reach a conviction, not to reach truth. While in this case, the conviction certainly was the truth, why did those in power feel it necessary to "rig" it? Why change judges when it looked like the current judge might not be as "anti-Saddam" as they thought? Why change the rules of the proceedings six times? Why not let the truth be the truth?

Did he "deserve" to die? Well, that's a hard question. Certainly his actions were immoral, and he certainly seemed to have no remorse for them, but did mean he deserved to die? This is a subjective issue, and there is no clear and easy answer, some will say, "Yes, absolutely," and others will say, "No, absolutely not," and they will both essentially be arguing from the same reasoning. All I know is that I am not without sin, and therefore I will not cast that first stone. My Savior instructed me to return hatred with love, to return violence with compassion. He instructed me quite clearly to treat others as I would like to be treated, not to treat them as they are treating me. He left me no room for interpretation there. He did not say to do this "unless what the other person did is really bad," or "unless I really want to," or "unless the other person is evil and deserves it." He was quite clear in his teaching, and I believe you can't cherry-pick the teachings of Christ. You either accept them all, or you accept none of them.

Again, it is not my intention to attack anyone or make anyone feel they are being attacked, please do not interpret my words in that fashion. But I am reminded of the words of Ghandi: "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians, they are so unlike your Christ." If we as Christians wish to avoid that perception, we have to strive to act like our Christ.

Peace be with all of you, and I pray for your prosperity, health, happiness, and faithfulness in the coming year.

This is quite an all-encompassing statement. This may be a workable philosophy for some lucky persons in this world who are free to openly declare their personal beliefs.

Unfortunately, the realities of the entire world tend to overwhelm such cherished beliefs, which tend not to travel well into every country.

"Yes, Hussein was evil. All human beings are evil; we carry within us the seed of sin from before we draw our first breath. He was not better or worse in God's eyes than any other disobedient, wicked child, which describes us all. We are made pure by God, for God, not by ourselves or our actions."

Saddam was not a disobedient, wicked child. And if I truly believed that God could not tell the difference, despair would be all that I had left.

Nor can I comprehend that God planted the "seed of sin" within every precious baby ever born. God would never have given us "first breath" if we were not born to bring good into this world by our own actions. In His power to light up the world, He decreed that we have free choice. And that we are not robotic and mindless is due to His infinite wisdom and not to some limited ideal that we are nothing but evil and sinful.

Saddam gives credence to the idea that we are responsible for our actions, for in those actions lays the fate of the world.

 

[soblessed53]

Exactly!!! ... They haven't forgiven Suddam... Did Jesus Christ teach forgiveness or did he teach taking extreme revenge for something you feel strongly about?

Wow,If you believe that Jesus just hands you forgiveness with no conditions of repententance and asking for His forgieveness with a truly sincere, broken heart,then I feel sorry for your state.

Sure cheapens what He did on the cross. It really galls me how some spread the malarky that Jesus forgave His executioners! Shows how well people really STUDY the Word. He (and also Stephen when he was stoned) was NOT addressing them,but God. Don't you suppose that He was requesting God give them more time before death, to come to repentanance,so they "could" recieve forgiveness? He did not just say" I" forgive you. Forgiving someone who has not repented and asked for it, and their heart has not changed,is meaningless,non-beneficial,and useless!

 

[icedtea]

People forget that Justice is important!

 

[EnemyPartyII]

People forget that Justice is important!

In some situations, there is no justice. Iraq is one of them. No one is better off because he is dead.

 

[RigalCygnos]

In some situations, there is no justice. Iraq is one of them. No one is better off because he is dead.

Besides myself, there are hundreds of thousands of people who completely disagree with you.

Perhaps on several subjects:

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=30390291&postcount=223

 

[Blackness]

Besides myself, there are hundreds of thousands of people who completely disagree with you.

Perhaps on several subjects:

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=30390291&postcount=223

What does her opinion on inappropriate content have to do with this subject? Sounds like an attempt to make her look bad... who cares if people disagree with her.

 

[RigalCygnos]

What does her opinion on inappropriate content have to do with this subject? Sounds like an attempt to make her look bad... who cares if people disagree with her.

In the first place, why should her opinion on inappropriate content made her look bad? She does not feel that way.
I used the link as an example of how many would disagree with her opinions on any subject, that is fact.

I care about many of the people who disagree with her..it is difficult to imagine those who could so easily brush aside the innocent victims of Saddam's sadistic rule. I care about the Iraqis who suffered Saddam's brutal attacks upon them and their families, also the people of Kuwait who were slaughtered and their oil wells put to torch to deprive them of the income.

Those oil wells would have kept the Iraqi government some problems in keeping up the prices of fuel for the rest of the world.

Why dismiss all the impact and damage with just a few short sentences?

I still disagree, and so do hundreds of thousands of others. Is her voice the most important of all?

I do not understand your logic.

 

[CCGirl]

In the first place, why should her opinion on inappropriate content made her look bad? She does not feel that way.
I used the link as an example of how many would disagree with her opinions on any subject, that is fact.

I care about many of the people who disagree with her..it is difficult to imagine those who could so easily brush aside the innocent victims of Saddam's sadistic rule. I care about the Iraqis who suffered Saddam's brutal attacks upon them and their families, also the people of Kuwait who were slaughtered and their oil wells put to torch to deprive them of the income.

Those oil wells would have kept the Iraqi government some problems in keeping up the prices of fuel for the rest of the world.

Why dismiss all the impact and damage with just a few short sentences?

I still disagree, and so do hundreds of thousands of others. Is her voice the most important of all?

I do not understand your logic.

The logic is this: By Saddam being executed after being found guilty of 148 deaths, the victims families and survivors of mass killings, for example, the Kurds, do not get to face Saddam and have their day in court. There are wide spread protests by the Kurds over this, as if his most horrific crimes were swept aside. Why not try him on all the charges? What about Justice for the victims?

There are also millions more around the world that have condemned this execution. The majority believe this was a travesty and mockery of justice (as well as governments). The support for this has come from the USA and the Shiites, including Iran.

 

[David Brider]

Wow,If you believe that Jesus just hands you forgiveness with no conditions of repententance and asking for His forgieveness with a truly sincere, broken heart,then I feel sorry for your state.

Sure cheapens what He did on the cross. It really galls me how some spread the malarky that Jesus forgave His executioners! Shows how well people really STUDY the Word. He (and also Stephen when he was stoned) was NOT addressing them,but God.

Whoever they were addressing, they were still expressing an attitude of forgiveness towards the people who were in the act of taking their lives; whether it's Jesus' "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they are doing," or Stephen's "Lord, do not hold this sin against them," that much is inescapable. So is Jesus' clear instruction to the disciples when teaching them about prayer: "For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins." For God's forgiveness of us, true repentance is a requirement. For our forgiveness of others, there's no such requirement. We're called - expected - to forgive, purely and simply.

David.

 

[Mandable]

I await the subsequent lynching of the Islamophobe Bush with relish...

 

[David Brider]

I await the subsequent lynching of the Islamophobe Bush with relish...

The big problem with this place is that I'm having a hard time working out whether you're being serious or making a rather sick joke...



David.

 

[Mandable]

The big problem with this place is that I'm having a hard time working out whether you're being serious or making a rather sick joke...



David.

I'm being totoally serious mate.

Bush is the most evil and dangerous virus on this planet...

 

[pgp_protector]

I await the subsequent lynching of the Islamophobe Bush with relish...

I'm being totoally serious mate.

Bush is the most evil and dangerous virus on this planet...

Ya know with the way the government is running today, making post that could be considered a threat to the sitting president may not be a wise thing to do.

 

[JPPT1974]

Well, hoping that Iraq government will improve
After what happened in a historic Friday last week.

 

[BlackAndy]

“Opponents of capital punishment may have contemplated Saddam’s execution by recalling Groucho Marx’s quote about never forgetting a face: For you, I’ll make an exception. One might argue that the trial could have been less farcical; one might have enjoyed seeing Saddam answer for all his crimes, including the deaths of 100,000 Kurds in 1987-88. In the end, however, he had but one neck to give for his country, and he proved that no man is above the law. Especially the one concerning gravity. Tyrants in other countries might have felt a pang of unease at his end; all that money, all that power, all those glorious implements of fear and oppression at his disposal, and it still added up to a drop, a jolt, an ignominious yank captured on shaky cellphone video. No doubt tyrants have drawn the correct conclusion, too: Confiscate all the cell phones. It felt oddly anticlimactic, though. Not that anyone expected it would end the violence. Iraq’s problems won’t end until the terrorists’ sponsors open the window one fine bright morning to find a Tomahawk sailing in their direction... Only fools expected Saddam’s death to solve the violence; that wasn’t the point. It was justice, and it was justice’s half-brother, vengeance. It was a tentative step toward the rule of law, but the real work will take decades. Ideally, you ought to be able to change leaders without hanging the last one.” —James Lileks

 

[BlackAndy]

“This is not the time to lament the dictator [Saddam], but of course that’s what many did. As his appointed hour grew nigh, the humanitarians of the world found a new champion. ‘He held the country together!’ Well, if President Bush gassed New York and California and outlawed the Democratic Party, he could impose the same sort of remarkable cohesion.” —James Lileks