Saddam has been executed

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Jesus was long dead before the bible was even written.

You're an idiot.

You're a ****ing idiot yourself.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


The gospel writers and St Paul had to write some really creative midrash to get that result. Yet some Christians (and anti-christians) today still look for a literal meaning to the Hebrew scriptures.

I was going to write this but LotM beat me to it. Some of you really don't know the Bible if even I can beat your Theological propaganda to a pulp.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Funny, I thought Daniel 9:24-27 was fairly specific.

a reference to Moshiach, yes, but pretty ambguious for the rest.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Micha also pretty specific in 5:2 as to birth place of Messiah being Bethlehem.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Micha also pretty specific in 5:2 as to birth place of Messiah being Bethlehem.

It says one who will be ruler, its not clear if this means the moshiach.

I wont address the historicity of Jesus being born in Bethlehem, rather than Nazareth. If you accept that story as true (as is implicit in taking the NT as true) then the idea of Jesus being the ruler referred to in Micah 5:2 makes sense. Of course if you leave out the part about rising against the Assyrians. But then midrash tends to leave out parts, even not very creative midrash.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


The US policy for most of the cold war was NOT to spread democracy, it was to avoid the spread of Soviet power. Theres a big mistake in looking at the cold war through twenty-twenty hindsight, in which we KNOW the fall of the SU was inevitable.

It depends on which viewpoint you're viewing it from, but I'd say you're right. Plenty of dictators were supported by the US. I contend to say that was more to strengthen their position rather than avoiding the spread of Soviet power, but that's merely a nuance...

[Berzerker]

The US policy for most of the cold war was NOT to spread democracy, it was to avoid the spread of Soviet power. Theres a big mistake in looking at the cold war through twenty-twenty hindsight, in which we KNOW the fall of the SU was inevitable.

US policy before and after the cold war was to suppress democratic movements because the great fear of communism is not that some country has socialised medicine but that western investments will or might be nationalised, even the American revolution nationalised England's assets (I think Ben Franklin said we had to or should compensate England). Land reform in the 3rd world is a BIG issue and why we've been invading little countries to put down populist movements for more than a hundred years. But capitalists and politicians would have a problem telling us we gotta go fight and die in some little country thats no threat to us to save their assets. Even the Russians propped up dictators rather than actually allow peoples to vote, not because of investments lost to nationalising industry but because its harder to control democracies and people aint gonna vote for Russian puppets.
----------------------------
Aeson

Nowhere have I stated how the utilitarian nature of the law should be set. If you really are interested, I find Democratic evaluation of the utility of "rights" the most effective. (Not perfect, but still better than other forms of evaluation.)

You dont have to state how utilitarian law is set, its self-explanatory. The greatest good or utility is the benchmark, not individual rights from a Creator. And of course "majority rule" determines the greatest good, but as history shows the majority ends up believing what they're told and a ruling elite will decide what is best for you and what is best for me. To quote Mel Gibson's character in "The Patriot" - "why should I exchange 1 tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants 1 mile away?"

But even if you have this democracy making informed decisions about utility, its still "society" making decisions for individuals so what you or I believe is best for ourselves doesn't matter - the good of society must prevail over the good of the individual.

No, I quite explicitly stated (as you quoted) that I think they are "one and the same". You could disagree with that assessment if you wish, but claiming that I stated that one is more important than the other is ignorant. And claiming that I specified societal needs as more important than individual ones is even more ignorant. That is because even if we suspend reality and accept that something can be more important than itself as you suggest, it's just as likely that I meant individual rights over societal needs.

You said this on pg 3

"Human rights" in general are only as important to me as they are utilitarian.

Clearly utilitarianism is more important to you than human rights

[Kuciwalker]

US policy before and after the cold war was to suppress democratic movements because the great fear of communism is not that some country has socialised medicine but that western investments will or might be nationalised, even the American revolution nationalised England's assets (I think Ben Franklin said we had to or should compensate England).

IIRC compensation was part of the Jay Treaty.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Berzerker
You dont have to state how utilitarian law is set, its self-explanatory.

Look up "utilitarian" in a dictionary. You will see there are other definitions that do not deal with utilitarianism.

u·til·i·tar·i·an /yuˌtɪlɪˈtɛəriən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[yoo-til-i-tair-ee-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. pertaining to or consisting in utility.
2. having regard to utility or usefulness rather than beauty, ornamentation, etc.
3. of, pertaining to, or adhering to the doctrine of utilitarianism.
–noun
4. an adherent of utilitarianism.

You misread it as 3... as in a set "ism". (BTW, utilitarianism doesn't even necessarily mean what you are implying either. There are many forms of utilitarianism. If we suspend reality again to allow your interpretation to be correct, your assertions based off that interpretation are still not justified.)

In the second sentence you initially quoted, I had said, "Those that seperate the [individual's rights and good of society] tend to have blinders on which make them incapable of judging what the good of either actually is in the long run." The basic tennet of the form of utilitarianism you are suggesting I follow seperates the good of society from individual's rights, claiming the good of society takes precidence over individual rights. That would imply that I find that form of utilitarianism incapable of judging the good of either. Hardly a viewpoint that an adherent to the "ism" would take wouldn't you say?

I was using the term "utilitarian" in regards to definition 1. It is not an "ism" with predetermined methods for determining utility. (Which if you knew me, or followed my posting on this forum at all, would be readily clear.) I also didn't, and haven't yet, described for you what I determine utility by. I have described for you a method for coming to consensus about utility, democracy, but not the actual method for determinging the utility on an individual basis. For all you know, I could have meant the utility was determined by a moral code provided by the Christian God.

Of course I don't determine utility like that myself, but it is a possible method contrary to your tunnel-vision about how the term "utilitarian" can be used. It is a method which you seem to use even, and one which I myself believe should be included in the decision about what a law's utility is. Yes, I think even you should be included. I think you're bat**** insane, but don't think I or anyone else has the right to determine what is utilitarian in your eyes, or preclude you from determining, or contributing to (in your own state/nation/ect) what the law should be.

The greatest good or utility is the benchmark, not individual rights from a Creator. And of course "majority rule" determines the greatest good, but as history shows the majority ends up believing what they're told and a ruling elite will decide what is best for you and what is best for me. To quote Mel Gibson's character in "The Patriot" - "why should I exchange 1 tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants 1 mile away?"

You want to live in a Theocracy, not a Democracy... Got it. Pardon the rest of us if we don't "[end] up believing what [we're] told" and want to be ruled by your concept of God. (Yah... He's all "live and let live"... right...)

But even if you have this democracy making informed decisions about utility, its still "society" making decisions for individuals so what you or I believe is best for ourselves doesn't matter - the good of society must prevail over the good of the individual.

You really have no idea what "society" is. It is individuals acting together to exert a common will. In a Democratic society, that generally means all individuals are welcome in determining that will. You and I both included.

As for what a society determines, that is quite variable. To suggest there is only one possible outcome is to ignore the vast variation shown in reality between various forms that democratic societies take.

Clearly utilitarianism is more important to you than human rights

You are a fool to think you can dictate to me what my own beliefs are, in contradiction to what I have stated on the subject. You give your concept of "God" the right to dictate to you... that's fine, you have every right to determine what is most utilitarian for yourself, and to contribute that view to society as well... but you are no God, nor dictionary, yourself. You neither set what is utilitarian, nor what is "utilitarian", to the rest of us.

Utilitarianism is only as important to me as the individuals who subscribe to it as a philosophy. (Much as creationism or any other "ism".) I do not subscribe to utilitarianism myself, nor any other "ism". I find "isms" obfuscate real discussion and give fodder for knee-jerk reactions and inflexible thought such as your own. In short, any "ism" is much lower on the list of importance to me than human rights.

[SlowwHand]

Saddam co-defendants to be executed Thurs.

By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press
40 minutes ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Preparations are under way to hang two of
Saddam Hussein's co-defendants on Thursday but the details still have to be worked out with the American military, an Iraqi government official said Wednesday.

Saddam's half brother Barzan Ibrahim, a former intelligence chief, and Awad Hamed al-Bandar, the former chief justice of the Revolutionary Court, were originally scheduled to hang with Saddam, who was put to death on Saturday.

But their execution was delayed until after Islam's Eid al-Adha holiday, which ends Wednesday for
Iraq's majority Shiites.

Al-Arabiya satellite television and Al-Furat TV, run by Iraq's major Shiite Muslim political organization, both reported Wednesday that Ibrahim and al-Bandar would go to the gallows on Thursday.

Asked about the reports, a government official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information, told The Associated Press that a Thursday execution was the plan.

However he said final arrangements still needed to be made with U.S. officials about the time and place because the American military was expected to transport the two men from prison to the execution site.

Saddam was hanged in Baghdad's Shiite neighborhood of Kazamiyah. During his regime, Saddam had numerous dissidents and opponents executed in the facility, located in a neighborhood that is home to the Iraqi capital's most important Shiite shrine — the Imam Kazim shrine.

The former Iraqi leader and the two co-defendants were convicted and sentenced to hang on Nov. 5 and the verdict was upheld by the appellate court on Dec. 26.

The three men were sentenced to death for the killing of 148 Shiite Muslims from the town of Dujail after a failed 1982 assassination against Saddam in the northern city.

Also Wednesday, an Iraqi prosecutor who attended Saddam's execution denied a report that he had accused the country's national security adviser of possible responsibility for the leaked video of the former dictator being hanged.

Within the country, Saddam's execution and the way it was conducted have provoked anger among Sunni Muslims, who have taken to the streets in mainly peaceful demonstrations across the country.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki on Tuesday ordered his Interior Ministry to investigate the video — who took it and how it reached television and Web sites for public viewing.

The photos showed an ugly scene in Saddam's last moments of life, with taunts and cries of "go to hell" called out before he dropped through the gallows floor and swung dead at the end of a rope.

The official video of the hanging, which never showed Saddam's actual death, was muted and gave the impression of a dignified execution.

The New York Times on Wednesday reported that Munqith al-Faroon, a prosecutor in the Dujail case, told the newspaper "one of two men he had seen holding a cell phone camera aloft to make a video of Mr. Hussein's last moments up to and past the point where he fell through the trapdoor was Mowaffak al-Rubaie, Mr. Maliki's national security adviser."

The Times said it had been unable to reach al-Rubaie for comment. AP also could not reach him Wednesday. His secretary said the security adviser, a close aide to al-Maliki, was in Najaf and would not return until later.

Al-Faroon told the AP Wednesday that there were 14 Iraqi officials, including himself and another prosecutor, as well as three hangmen present at the execution. All the officials, he said, were flown by U.S. helicopter to the execution site.

The prosecutor said he believed all cell phones had been confiscated before the flight and that some of the officials' bodyguards, who arrived by car, had smuggled the camera phones two officials he had seen taking the video pictures.

"I am not accusing Mowaffak al-Rubaie (the national security adviser), and I did not see him taking pictures," al-Faroon told the AP.

"But I saw two of the government officials who were...present during the execution taking all the video of the execution, using the lights that were there for the official taping of the execution. They used mobile phone cameras. I do not know their names, but I would remember their faces," al-Faroon said in a telephone interview.

The prosecutor said the two officials were openly taking video pictures, which are believed to be those which appeared on Al-Jazeera satellite television and a Web site within hours of Saddam's death.

Some of the last words Saddam heard, according to the leaked cell phone video, where a chant of "Muqtada, Muqtada, Muqtada," a reference to Muqtada al-Sadr, the radical anti-American Shiite cleric, whose Mahdi Army militia is believed responsible for many of this year's wave of killings that have targeted Sunnis and driven many from their homes.

Al-Sadr's father was killed by Saddam. The militant cleric is a key al-Maliki backer.

Also Wednesday, U.S. troops detained 23 people suspected of having ties to senior al-Qaida leaders in raids in western Iraq, the military said. The raids took place in Ramadi, the capital of Iraq's volatile western Anbar province.

During the raids, three of the suspects detonated an improvised explosive device, then ran into a house. American troops shot one of the suspects, wounding him as he tried to flee, the military said in a statement.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
It took thousands at the end of the first gulf war when Bush Sr told Iraqis to rebel and then turned his back on them, nobody got Saddam then.

We'd have had the same mess we have today, only twelve years earlier.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

US policy before and after the cold war was to suppress democratic movements because the great fear of communism is not that some country has socialised medicine but that western investments will or might be nationalised, even the American revolution nationalised England's assets (I think Ben Franklin said we had to or should compensate England).

IIRC compensation was part of the Jay Treaty.

Doesn't mean it was paid.

[SlowwHand]

I get so tired of hearing about Bush Sr. turning his back on Iraq. It's crap, pure and simple.
He bowed to the wishes of the illustrious United Nations.
Personally, I wish he's told them to screw off.

[chequita guevara]

Again, same mess, twelve years earlier. He did not bow to the wishes of the UN, but to his Arab allies and U.S. military commanders who told him what a cluster**** occupying Iraq would be. The difference between Bush I and Bush II is I was smart enough to listen.

You know, Sloww, for someone who claims to be pro-life, you sure like lots of people to die. You're one sick individual.

[SlowwHand]

Yeah, that's me.

What I believe in is holding people accountable for their actions.
That includes dictators as well as abortion as a manner of birth control.