Saddam Hussein Hanged

In terms of civil debate, this thread has been an excellent example of how things should be done. For it to degenerate into some kind of name calling would be very wrong.

In terms of trust and politicians, the terms are generally thought to be mutually exclusive. Irrespective of the nationality or political persuasion of any democratically elected politician, there will always be a number of people who can mount a case to show that every politician fails to perform in some way.

In the case of George Bush Junior, given the size of the US, and the visibility to the world, there are more people able to enter the debate. In the case of any smaller nation there will be less people taking up either a postive or negative view.

Scot comedian Billy Connelly said " the mere fact that someone wanted to be a politician should disqualify them from being able to be one". And while said in jest, I think that this sums up how most people feel about politicians generally. If that is only half way true, it shows the validity of democracy, and how fortunate we are to have a choice.

that choice was not available in Iraq.

I wonder if this piece of news will make it to the US news:

http://www.iltalehti.fi/uutiset/2007...71968_uu.shtml

It says 7 kids around the world have hanged themselves after seeing the video about Saddam's hanging.

Translation: "In Saudi Arbia a 12 year old boy hanged himself after seeing the execution of Saddam on TV. According to newspapers, youngsters have hanged themselves also in Yemen, Pakistan, India, the United States and Algeria."

Following on from the NY times article here is one from The Independent in London showing that the West was happily arming Saddam.

Robert Fisk: He takes his secrets to the grave. Our complicity dies with him

How the West armed Saddam, fed him intelligence on his 'enemies', equipped him for atrocities - and then made sure he wouldn't squeal

Published: 31 December 2006



We've shut him up. The moment Saddam's hooded executioner pulled the lever of the trapdoor in Baghdad yesterday morning, Washington's secrets were safe. The shameless, outrageous, covert military support which the United States - and Britain - gave to Saddam for more than a decade remains the one terrible story which our presidents and prime ministers do not want the world to remember. And now Saddam, who knew the full extent of that Western support - given to him while he was perpetrating some of the worst atrocities since the Second World War - is dead.
Gone is the man who personally received the CIA's help in destroying the Iraqi communist party. After Saddam seized power, US intelligence gave his minions the home addresses of communists in Baghdad and other cities in an effort to destroy the Soviet Union's influence in Iraq. Saddam's mukhabarat visited every home, arrested the occupants and their families, and butchered the lot. Public hanging was for plotters; the communists, their wives and children, were given special treatment - extreme torture before execution at Abu Ghraib.
There is growing evidence across the Arab world that Saddam held a series of meetings with senior American officials prior to his invasion of Iran in 1980 - both he and the US administration believed that the Islamic Republic would collapse if Saddam sent his legions across the border - and the Pentagon was instructed to assist Iraq's military machine by providing intelligence on the Iranian order of battle. One frosty day in 1987, not far from Cologne, I met the German arms dealer who initiated those first direct contacts between Washington and Baghdad - at America's request.
"Mr Fisk... at the very beginning of the war, in September of 1980, I was invited to go to the Pentagon," he said. "There I was handed the very latest US satellite photographs of the Iranian front lines. You could see everything on the pictures. There were the Iranian gun emplacements in Abadan and behind Khorramshahr, the lines of trenches on the eastern side of the Karun river, the tank revetments - thousands of them - all the way up the Iranian side of the border towards Kurdistan. No army could want more than this. And I travelled with these maps from Washington by air to Frankfurt and from Frankfurt on Iraqi Airways straight to Baghdad. The Iraqis were very, very grateful!"
I was with Saddam's forward commandos at the time, under Iranian shellfire, noting how the Iraqi forces aligned their artillery positions far back from the battle front with detailed maps of the Iranian lines. Their shelling against Iran outside Basra allowed the first Iraqi tanks to cross the Karun within a week. The commander of that tank unit cheerfully refused to tell me how he had managed to choose the one river crossing undefended by Iranian armour. Two years ago, we met again, in Amman and his junior officers called him "General" - the rank awarded him by Saddam after that tank attack east of Basra, courtesy of Washington's intelligence information.
Iran's official history of the eight-year war with Iraq states that Saddam first used chemical weapons against it on 13 January 1981. AP's correspondent in Baghdad, Mohamed Salaam, was taken to see the scene of an Iraqi military victory east of Basra. "We started counting - we walked miles and miles in this ****ing desert, just counting," he said. "We got to 700 and got muddled and had to start counting again ... The Iraqis had used, for the first time, a combination - the nerve gas would paralyse their bodies ... the mustard gas would drown them in their own lungs. That's why they spat blood."
At the time, the Iranians claimed that this terrible cocktail had been given to Saddam by the US. Washington denied this. But the Iranians were right. The lengthy negotiations which led to America's complicity in this atrocity remain secret - Donald Rumsfeld was one of President Ronald Reagan's point-men at this period - although Saddam undoubtedly knew every detail. But a largely unreported document, "United States Chemical and Biological Warfare-related Dual-use exports to Iraq and their possible impact on the Health Consequences of the Persian Gulf War", stated that prior to 1985 and afterwards, US companies had sent government-approved shipments of biological agents to Iraq. These included Bacillus anthracis, which produces anthrax, andEscherichia coli (E. coli). That Senate report concluded that: "The United States provided the Government of Iraq with 'dual use' licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-systems programs, including ... chemical warfare agent production facility plant and technical drawings, chemical warfare filling equipment."
Nor was the Pentagon unaware of the extent of Iraqi use of chemical weapons. In 1988, for example, Saddam gave his personal permission for Lt-Col Rick Francona, a US defence intelligence officer - one of 60 American officers who were secretly providing members of the Iraqi general staff with detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning and bomb damage assessments - to visit the Fao peninsula after Iraqi forces had recaptured the town from the Iranians. He reported back to Washington that the Iraqis had used chemical weapons to achieve their victory. The senior defence intelligence officer at the time, Col Walter Lang, later said that the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis "was not a matter of deep strategic concern".
I saw the results, however. On a long military hospital train back to Tehran from the battle front, I found hundreds of Iranian soldiers coughing blood and mucus from their lungs - the very carriages stank so much of gas that I had to open the windows - and their arms and faces were covered with boils. Later, new bubbles of skin appeared on top of their original boils. Many were fearfully burnt. These same gases were later used on the Kurds of Halabja. No wonder that Saddam was primarily tried in Baghdad for the slaughter of Shia villagers, not for his war crimes against Iran.
We still don't know - and with Saddam's execution we will probably never know - the extent of US credits to Iraq, which began in 1982. The initial tranche, the sum of which was spent on the purchase of American weapons from Jordan and Kuwait, came to $300m. By 1987, Saddam was being promised $1bn in credit. By 1990, just before Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, annual trade between Iraq and the US had grown to $3.5bn a year. Pressed by Saddam's foreign minister, Tariq Aziz, to continue US credits, James Baker then Secretary of State, but the same James Baker who has just produced a report intended to drag George Bush from the catastrophe of present- day Iraq - pushed for new guarantees worth $1bn from the US.
In 1989, Britain, which had been giving its own covert military assistance to Saddam guaranteed £250m to Iraq shortly after the arrest of Observer journalist Farzad Bazoft in Baghdad. Bazoft, who had been investigating an explosion at a factory at Hilla which was using the very chemical components sent by the US, was later hanged. Within a month of Bazoft's arrest William Waldegrave, then a Foreign Office minister, said: "I doubt if there is any future market of such a scale anywhere where the UK is potentially so well-placed if we play our diplomatic hand correctly... A few more Bazofts or another bout of internal oppression would make it more difficult."
Even more repulsive were the remarks of the then Deputy Prime Minister, Geoffrey Howe, on relaxing controls on British arms sales to Iraq. He kept this secret, he wrote, because "it would look very cynical if, so soon after expressing outrage about the treatment of the Kurds, we adopt a more flexible approach to arms sales".
Saddam knew, too, the secrets of the attack on the USS Stark when, on 17 May 1987, an Iraqi jet launched a missile attack on the American frigate, killing more than a sixth of the crew and almost sinking the vessel. The US accepted Saddam's excuse that the ship was mistaken for an Iranian vessel and allowed Saddam to refuse their request to interview the Iraqi pilot.
The whole truth died with Saddam Hussein in the Baghdad execution chamber yesterday. Many in Washington and London must have sighed with relief that the old man had been silenced for ever.
'The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East' by Robert Fisk is now available in paperback

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle2114403.ece

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

http://www.iltalehti.fi/uutiset/2007...71968_uu.shtml

Translation: "In Saudi Arbia (SIC) a 12 year old boy hanged himself after seeing the execution of Saddam on TV. According to newspapers, youngsters have hanged themselves also in Yemen, Pakistan, India, the United States and Algeria."

---

We can only hope and pray that all of Al Queda will be inspired by these suicides and follow suit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

Good point, both sides of the debate should remain civil or they will end up closing the thread.

---

This is the Formula Libre section - no rules, just "run what you brung." You've just entered the octagonal ring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cossie16

Following on from the NY times article here is one from The Independent in London showing that the West was happily arming Saddam.

---

It never ceases to amaze me how quickly the revisionists jump into action. The revisionists are much more malevolent than the conspiracy theorists because they risk establishing some level of credibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

I do, and that comment is in line with my opinion. Mrs Halonen has also condemned the Iraq invasion, calling it illegal.

---

I'm happy that Carlos Alvarez did not shoot himself in the foot with such an ignorant statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

Besides, overthrowing Saddam encouraged the rise of extremist movements, not discouraged them.

---

Amazing. You have only the slightest acquaintance with facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agwiii

This is the Formula Libre section - no rules, just "run what you brung." You've just entered the octagonal ring.

---

Have you ever considered spontaneous combustion? I think it would do a man like you a world of good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by studiose

Have you ever considered spontaneous combustion? I think it would do a man like you a world of good.

---

How almost clever of you studiose. Your attempt at being a wit made it half way there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agwiii

How almost clever of you studiose. Your attempt at being a wit made it half way there.

---

Better half way than no way. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by studiose

Better half way than no way. ;)

---

That's what all half-wits say. I have always wondered why they would admit such a thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agwiii

That's what all half-wits say. I have always wondered why they would admit such a thing.

---

You know, I can't really say. :( But how about that spontaneous combustion, then? Did you give it a try? Oh come on, you've got to! ;)

Oh my, I will just not comment on the insults going back and forth.

Lets put it this way. If people want to commit suicide because of Saddam's hanging, well, it is a selfish act, and terrorists are nothing but selfish. A tragedy to be sure people feel a need to commit suicide, I know of a family member who did that very thing, and the pain of it will live with me forever. So you guys can make jokes about it, but for the families left behind, I hope they realize that suicide is selfish act that hurts the family most of all.

Now for the drivel about how Saddam was hung to cover up his misdeeds and relations with the US. We know the US foreign policy in the 80's was to support this mutt. You are not telling us anything new. Again, another miscaluclation on the behalf of US Foreign policy. It isn't some deep dark secret. The one thing that the US has to wear is its failures in foreign policy, because unlike Communist nations (China) or autocratic powers (Russia), there is a freedom of information act on much of what goes on, and it is that democratic freedom to question the government of any western nation that makes the US such a great whipping boy for all the left-wing, knee-jerk second guessing that seems to be alive and well in every democratic nation. That is the price the US has to pay for freedom of speech. Yet you guys think the US is the problem.

No, Saddam was backed in a cynical foreign policy that was common in the cold war. My dictator was always better than your dictator, or in this case, better Saddam than Iran. Remember, the US was still smarting after the hostage crisis. Was it wrong? Hell ya, it was, but show me a nation state that gets everything right and I will show you revisionist history. Saddam was the attack dog for the US in 1980 or so, but by the time 1989 came along, they realized the dog might be rabid. In 1990, they knew the dog was rabid, and they just took 14 years to put him down.

Saddam didn't take any secret information making the US look bad to the grave. If he did, he is twice the moron I thought he was, a trial where that evidence was entered would have embarassed the US. Yet Saddam just bleated how he had the right to be president and the trial was illegal. No, the trial was your chance to put it in the open dummy, assuming you had anything more to add, but alas, Saddam was obviously holding the door when they handed out intelligence....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Yet you guys think the US is the problem.

---

No, we just think it's a part of the problem. It takes two to tango.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Lets put it this way. If people want to commit suicide because of Saddam's hanging, well, it is a selfish act, and terrorists are nothing but selfish. A tragedy to be sure people feel a need to commit suicide, I know of a family member who did that very thing, and the pain of it will live with me forever. So you guys can make jokes about it, but for the families left behind, I hope they realize that suicide is selfish act that hurts the family most of all.

---

Speaking of families, I also saw a story on Finnish media on how Saddam's daughters miss their father, probably another thing the US media will coveniently forget.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Oh my, I will just not comment on the insults going back and forth.

---

Sorry about that. And apologies to Agwiii. I wasn't myself last night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by studiose

Sorry about that. And apologies to Agwiii. I wasn't myself last night.

---

who where you then?

Well, I don't know what to call it, but I was drunk and pissed off at Agwiii. Whereas usually I'm just pissed off at Agwiii. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

Speaking of families, I also saw a story on Finnish media on how Saddam's daughters miss their father, probably another thing the US media will coveniently forget.

---

Isn't that to be expected?

It is hardly news, or news worthy. Everybody who loses a family member feels a sense of loss. All of the bad stuff goes away, and everyone remembers the good.It is a natural part of grieving.

I am not sure what point you are making

The Fisk article does not raise any new stuff.

The US fed both Iran and Iraq (and the taleban, and the afghanis before) and many others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by studiose

Well, I don't know what to call it, but I was drunk and pissed off at Agwiii. Whereas usually I'm just pissed off at Agwiii. :)

---

lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Oh my, I will just not comment on the insults going back and forth.

Lets put it this way. If people want to commit suicide because of Saddam's hanging, well, it is a selfish act, and terrorists are nothing but selfish. A tragedy to be sure people feel a need to commit suicide, I know of a family member who did that very thing, and the pain of it will live with me forever. So you guys can make jokes about it, but for the families left behind, I hope they realize that suicide is selfish act that hurts the family most of all.

Now for the drivel about how Saddam was hung to cover up his misdeeds and relations with the US. We know the US foreign policy in the 80's was to support this mutt. You are not telling us anything new. Again, another miscaluclation on the behalf of US Foreign policy. It isn't some deep dark secret. The one thing that the US has to wear is its failures in foreign policy, because unlike Communist nations (China) or autocratic powers (Russia), there is a freedom of information act on much of what goes on, and it is that democratic freedom to question the government of any western nation that makes the US such a great whipping boy for all the left-wing, knee-jerk second guessing that seems to be alive and well in every democratic nation. That is the price the US has to pay for freedom of speech. Yet you guys think the US is the problem.

No, Saddam was backed in a cynical foreign policy that was common in the cold war. My dictator was always better than your dictator, or in this case, better Saddam than Iran. Remember, the US was still smarting after the hostage crisis. Was it wrong? Hell ya, it was, but show me a nation state that gets everything right and I will show you revisionist history. Saddam was the attack dog for the US in 1980 or so, but by the time 1989 came along, they realized the dog might be rabid. In 1990, they knew the dog was rabid, and they just took 14 years to put him down.

Saddam didn't take any secret information making the US look bad to the grave. If he did, he is twice the moron I thought he was, a trial where that evidence was entered would have embarassed the US. Yet Saddam just bleated how he had the right to be president and the trial was illegal. No, the trial was your chance to put it in the open dummy, assuming you had anything more to add, but alas, Saddam was obviously holding the door when they handed out intelligence....

---

I find it pretty hard to believe that a country of never-ending resources and intelligence services like USA didn't find Saddam "rabid" after he started butchering people right and left. It's understandable to defend your country and way of life, because you are in fact defending your own existance, but enough is enough. If you refuse to open your eyes to the role that USA is playing today and foolishly believe they aim to establish world peace then there is nothing more to say.Go watch Borat - it will tell you more about Americans than we all ever wanted to know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomi

who where you then?

---

A half-wit, according to agwiii.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyPerry

Go watch Borat - it will tell you more about Americans than we all ever wanted to know.

---

Lol, very true, good and funny movie, it is both a comedy or tragedy, depends who is looking :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

A half-wit, according to agwiii.

---

If there's an element of truth in this, he stumbled on it by accident. :p :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by studiose

Well, I don't know what to call it, but I was drunk and pissed off at Agwiii. Whereas usually I'm just pissed off at Agwiii. :)

---

LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyPerry

Go watch Borat - it will tell you more about Americans than we all ever wanted to know.

---

Go watch "Night and Fog" to understand what Eki and the others in the FFL are supporting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agwiii

Go watch "Night and Fog" to understand what Eki and the others in the FFL are supporting.

---

Oh come on! Nobody's laughing.

Maybe you should see one of Michael Moore's documents. Oh, but I'm sure you can't. Because those are all just full of lies and left-wing liberals, right?

Yes, the US has backed some awful people, including Saddam in the 1980's. That's because, in politics, there are usually no good options. You have to choose the least bad option, and in the 1980's, the least bad option was, arguably, to back Iraq, at least sufficiently to stop the place being taken over by Iran.

That is still the situation, in fact. The present government of Iraq is far from perfect. The army and police are infiltrated with militant Shiite militiamen who are running around killing innocent Sunni civilians. But we back the Iraqi government, not because the government is totally benign, but because there is no better option. Has Robert Fisk any better option to suggest? I bet not.

It's all very well for Fisk to complain about the US having backed Saddam, but what would he say the US should have done instead? Stayed out of the dispute between Iraq and Iran? That would have amounted to giving a green light to the Iranians to overrun Iraq, and when the US gives a green light to a nation bent on conquest, the first people to complain are the Robert Fisks of the world. So, as Mark said a few days ago, the US simply cannot ever do right in the eyes of its critics.

But to get back to another point that has been raised in the last day or two, and that is whether oil was the motivation for the Iraqi war. Stan says it was, and Mark pointed out that spending billions of dollars on a war for the right to pay prevailing market prices for Iraqi oil is one hell of a strange way of going about getting oil on the cheap. I'm not sure I buy that entirely, because the neocons who masterminded the Iraqi war fully believed that the war would be very cheap. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz's vision was of a very small, very high-tech force, quickly overcoming the enemy and establishing control. Large, expensive deployments of troops would be unnecessary and the oil revenue, it was thought, would pay for the re-construction of Iraq; this would be fairly cheap anyway, because the damage, it was naively believed, would be minimal. This over-optimistic assessment was prompted in part by the easy success in Afghanistan, where the high-tech, small force approach seemed to have worked well.

So I suggest that the Americans didn't think the war would be expensive, and they did believe that the oil revenue would defray the relatively small costs that would be incurred. They also believed that the war was a way to get, if not cheap oil, then at least a reliable supply of normally-priced oil. In that sense, one of the motives was indeed oil.

But I have two things to say about that: first, what is wrong with trying to secure a steady, reliable supply of oil? I know Mark made this point earlier, but I think it bears repeating, because Eki and Stan and most critics of the Coalition seem to think that all they have to do is point to oil as a motive for the Iraqi action and they have discredited the entire war effort. I reject that; it might be reasonable if oil were the ONLY motivation, though even then, reasonable people could differ, but I challenge you, Stan, to come up with any convincing argument that oil, and only oil, was the Coalition's reason for going to war.

Which brings me to my second point, and that is that the motivations for war, especially in a democracy like the United States, are NEVER simple. Hell, I can't even tell you why I got up this morning! Was it because I'd be bored if I stayed in bed, because I wanted the respect of my wife, who would be disgusted if I stayed in bed all day, because I needed the money from work, because I am just in the habit, because . . . I don't know. And so it is with the decision to go to war. Everyone who signed on to the decision, which is millions of people, signed on for his or her own reasons. For me, I supported it (with grave misgivings) primarily because I believed that Saddam, if not confronted, would eventually become the master of the entire Middle East, kill millions of people (including all Jews), control the world price of oil, and end up as a menace as big as Stalin had been a half century before. We had survived the Soviet threat; I didn't want to see one powerful monster replaced by another. Securing the oil supply was another motive for me, but certainly far down the list, and I suspect that was the case for most of us who supported the Iraqi action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woodeye

Oh come on! Nobody's laughing.

Maybe you should see one of Michael Moore's documents. Oh, but I'm sure you can't. Because those are all just full of lies and left-wing liberals, right?

---

The fat man's stuff is fiction. At the Academy Award, he tried to get his 911 Diatribe in as a documentary, but even the Film Academy (quite leftist) rejected that and placed the film in the fiction category.

Nice try, but no cigar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gannex

You have to choose the least bad option, and in the 1980's, the least bad option was, arguably, to back Iraq, at least sufficiently to stop the place being taken over by Iran.

---

That's an interesting point. Do you believe Iraq would have been worse off under Iran than under Saddam?

I don't know. It's a close call. What do you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gannex

I don't know. It's a close call. What do you think?

---

I don't know, I just know the Sunnis wouldn't have been happy and the place may probably had been a similar mess than it's now. I'm not sure if all the Shiias would have been happy either, many don't like foreign invaders in their country no matter who they are.

I belive it would have been about same that what it is now, a guerilla war, only difference is Iran knows about local customs and manners.

I think the Shia would have preferred Iran to the Ba'athists. At least, under Iranian control, the Shia would have been able to practice their religion, which they were not allowed to do under Saddam. The Shiite holy days could not be observed, and if you remember, after Saddam's fall, the rejoicing on the first Shia, as opposed to Sunni, holiday, was a joy to behold.

But there's no question that the Shia of Iraq would prefer to control their own affairs, over control by either the Iranians or the Ba'athists. They have a wonderful religious leader in al Sistani. This man makes the clerics of Iran look like fools by comparison. In a perfect world, the Shia of Iraq would have been led by al Sistani in a religiously tolerant theocracy. That, I believe, is what the British were hoping for at the beginning of the campaign, but of course it never happened, and now seems certain never to happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gannex

I think the Shia would have preferred Iran to the Ba'athists. At least, under Iranian control, the Shia would have been able to practice their religion, which they were not allowed to do under Saddam. The Shiite holy days could not be observed, and if you remember, after Saddam's fall, the rejoicing on the first Shia, as opposed to Sunni, holiday, was a joy to behold.

But there's no question that the Shia of Iraq would prefer to control their own affairs, over control by either the Iranians or the Ba'athists. They have a wonderful religious leader in al Sistani. This man makes the clerics of Iran look like fools by comparison. In a perfect world, the Shia of Iraq would have been led by al Sistani in a religiously tolerant theocracy. That, I believe, is what the British were hoping for at the beginning of the campaign, but of course it never happened, and now seems certain never to happen.

---

Its very difficult to predict what would have happen, but history tells that normally a war unites the people, because they have a common enemy.
But if that would have happen some of the other Arab countries would have propably got involved also some how.
Many does not seem to understand also on how weak basis almost every government in that area is, meaning the majority of the people wants else than only words from their goverments.

I agree, Tomi. The people of Saudi Arabia do not want to be ruled by Saudi princes, any more than the people of Egypt want Mubarak, or Syrians want Assad. There isn't a democracy anywhere in the Arab world. Which is why it's such a crying shame that it has proved impossible to establish a democracy in Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gannex

I agree, Tomi. The people of Saudi Arabia do not want to be ruled by Saudi princes, any more than the people of Egypt want Mubarak, or Syrians want Assad. There isn't a democracy anywhere in the Arab world. Which is why it's such a crying shame that it has proved impossible to establish a democracy in Iraq.

---

Have you btw heard any Arab leader comment anything about the hanging of Hussein?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bowler

Isn't that to be expected?

It is hardly news, or news worthy. Everybody who loses a family member feels a sense of loss. All of the bad stuff goes away, and everyone remembers the good.It is a natural part of grieving.

I am not sure what point you are making

---

My point is, everyone who's going to kill somebody, even themselves, should remember that the one dying isn't the only one who will suffer. Heck, the one dying might even be the one who suffers least.