Hussein sentenced to death

Saddam was found guilty of crimes against humanity, you tryin to say we aint human ?

Even in Islamic law, if he was found guilty (assuming it was a fair trial and strong evidence) the sentence will blood for blood. The sentence must be fair, if he was responsible in the killing of ppl, he then should be executed. Period.

Well it is debatable. But i think they are using the word humanity as meaning characteristics of being human rather than meaning the entire human race. I can't see how killing a group of people in a small isolated part of Halabja is a crime against the human race as a whole.


Does that extend to our leaders and their killing? Or just brown people with moustaches?

You know what this means right ?

Midterm Midtacular? No i don't know what it means.
I don't even think midtacular is a word at all.

From what I understand, islamic law mostly applied for Muslims and non-muslim who lives in a muslim country who implement islamic law will be charged to a different law. So here we have dualism existed in the country which cater for both Muslim and non-Muslim. That is allowed by the Quran. The Quran allows those who are not Muslims to practise the laws of their own religion and the laws which they choose for themselves.

So is it fair to have two sets of law for muslim and non-muslim? a muslim who involve in unmarried sexual intercouse can result in 100 whips / stoned to death (if already married) but a non-muslim jailed for 5 years for the same crime. It's quite complicated to explain this cos this involves with afterlife retribution. It is said that muslim who punished according to Islamic law is spared in the afterlife retribution which is God knows how harsh the punishment can be.

So back to the main question, brown man with a mustache you are categorising based on race and in my comment i do mention about muslim and non-muslim. So in this case, let's assume that the trial is fair and there is a strong evidance proving that Saddam is reponsible in the killing of ppl, so he should be punished according to the law of the country he was presecuted and same goes for any leaders who commit mass murder.

What do muslims have to do with it?
He wasn't tried in an islamic court under Sharia law.

i'm sorry for my ignorance. I thought he was on trial under the Sharia law.

If he was they would have cut a finger off each day, poked his eyes out on day 13 and the finale would be him being thrown to a pack of dogs.... Then they would start the trial.

So by executing him it would be considered cruel?

From which Sharia are you referring to?

The point was more of a stab at the backwardsnes and brutality of sharia law than an opinion on what i think would be good/cruel/bad/justified/expected

The kind of sharia law that does this and this. Don't watch the videos if you don't like reality.

jb, i know this is a rhetorical question, but i want to answer it anyways!

simple answer: because the united states said so.

the coalition provisional authority (an occupying military power, made up of the u.s., the u.k. and their pals) formed the tribunal in the midst of the interntional community commenting that occupying forces should not establish judicial systems and that saddam, like other war criminals before him, should be tried in an international forum (as were the nazis, milosovec, etc.)

but international trials tend not to lead to execution, so the u.s. decided that it would be better to establish a tribunal, however illegal by international law, that could order an execution.

oh, and joebert, did that daily show banner actually appear on ozzu or did you photoshop that ish in there?

It was there, I about died laughing when I seen it so I had to share.