BF2S Forums Saddam Hussein

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jepeto87 wrote:

Yeah I'd been looking for that story UnOriginalNuttah, how ironic that the nation leading "The War on Terror" is the only nation ever to be convicted of terrorism...

ya know I read that twice and I don't see anywhere where the US has a "conviction for commiting terrorism"

could you please point that out for me.

Sure:

"The United States of America, by certain attacks on Nicaraguan territory in 1983-1984, namely attacks on Puerto Sandino on September 13 and October 14 1983, an attack on Corinto on October 10 1983; an attack on Potosi Naval Base on January 4 and 5 1984, an attack on San Juan del Sur on March 7 1984; attacks on patrol boats at Puerto Sandino on March 28 and 30 1984; and an attack on San Juan del Norte on April 9 1984; and further by those acts of intervention referred to [above] which involve the use of force, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another State."

This would fit the DoD of description of terrorism including violence against another government to gain political goals.  Note that arming the Contra's also counts towards this charge (where it says [above]).


EDIT:  Added some new responses:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

It just cracks me up that America keeps going on about Saddam's reign or terror (which they created).

We didn't choose to kill his own population.  Watch the History Channel's documentation on Saddam.  He was a murderer before the US even knew he existed.  By 15 he had already killed his first man.  You're not too good with facts.

So then America is an accomplice to murder, seeing as they got him into power and supplied him the chemical weapons.  Isn't assisting a murderer to kill again a crime if a normal citizen were to do it? 

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

Here's the US DoD definition on terrorism:

"the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."

And here's the court ruling which found that America had used unlawful violence against the state of Nicaragua:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States

By the courts logic then America should be convicted of the same 'crime(s)' by supplying the allies in ww1 and ww2.

Yeah, because the UN wasn't formed after WW2 to make sure that rogue nations don't go around invading people, overthrowing their governments or bombing them for personal gain, was it?

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

So, let's compare the number of international terrorism convictions that Saddam's government had against the number the American government has:

Government of United States of America: 1
Saddam Hussein's Iraq: 0

I would imagine that 700,000+ dead kurds and shiites would argue your opinion.

They would argue that Iraq has been convicted of international terrorism?  The figure you quote is for the period after 1983 when America armed and assisted Saddam in his rise to power.  Tell me, would you give a psychopath a chainsaw and lock him in a room full of school children?  If you did so would you not be just as bad?

Jepeto87 wrote:

lowing wrote:

ya know I read that twice and I don't see anywhere where the US has a "conviction for commiting terrorism"

could you please point that out for me.

Im sorry about that I meant charged with terrorism (i fixed it now!) . I'd assume they would be convicted of the charges and thats why they vetoed it. Im not America bashing (thats done enough in these forums!). I was just pointing out something I felt was ironic!

Beside's lots of countries have commited acts of terrorism in the past, like when the Russians wiped out Afghanistan's parliament as a prelude to there invasion of the country. Even in my country people want the British goverment bought befor the EU courts over two terrorist bombings in the 70's!! And im sure there's people in Northern Ireland who would like my goverment to explain several "incidents".

Anywho sorry bout the mistake, the worlds full of hypocrits!

Cheers

Are you saying that other countries committing terrorism means it's okay?  Of course the government here in England has done some evil things, but that doesn't mean they should be forgiven or not pay reparations.  I think they should forgive the 3rd world debt which was created from false promises anyway.  I personally don't give a fuck about this so-called lifestyle they claim to be protecting.  The number of cars on the streets is ridiculous, global warming is wiping out the planet, and the obsession with wealth and economy growth simply widens the gap between rich and poor, leaving many people without education, homes or a decent quality of life.  You may say that I'm hypocritical because I clearly own a computer and play games, but let's be honest... the odd hundred watt's or so every now and again isn't like shifting 2 tons of steel to go to the shop.    I always recycle, get green tariff energy and use public transport or cycle so I feel my guilt is less than most.  I'd gladly have a windup laptop if I could get hold of one.   But I'll agree with the statement everyone is hypocritical to some degree.

And anyway it say's that the "court found in favour of Nicaragua".  Then it talks a bit about how America tried to weasel out of it on a technicality and failed:

"The United States had signed the treaty accepting the Court's decision as binding, but with the exception that the court would not have the power to hear cases based on multilateral treaty obligations, as this case was. The court found that it was obliged to apply this exception, but eleven of the judges concluded that they could still decide the case based on customary international law obligations. Three judges dissented, essentially agreeing with the United States that the court had no jurisdiction.

On November 3rd 1986 the United Nations General Assembly passed a non-binding resolution in order to pressure the U.S. to pay the fine. Only El Salvador, which also had disputes with Nicaragua, and Israel voted with the U.S. In spite of this resolution, the U.S. still elected not to pay the fine."

They didn't get out of the conviction at all, they didn't manage to get the judgement overturned, and what's more everyone knows they did and they don't deny it.  At the end of the day they just refused to pony up the dough.  That's probably when they realised they could do this if anyone tried to bring a case against them through the ICJ again....

Last edited by lowing (2006-03-31 06:11:49)

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

So.....Saddam got a key to Detroit.

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

So.....Saddam got a key to Detroit.

yeah, the joke was on him

LMAO!! Your right about that....