Saddam Hussein died a good death. He looked his opponents in the eye and was defiant right up until the end. I hope whenever my time comes I can go as confidently (and hopefully less violently).

I haven't spoken to anyone today (including people at church - not every Christian thinks like BD) who hasn't felt some sense of regret about his death. It's one thing for a government to send someone, like a soldier, to a place where they may die; it is another to exert the force of the state in a way where a man will most certainly die. I have regrets, but ultimately think it is better Hussein was hung. I don't believe in capital punishment for normal crimes, but his instance is different.

There is no doubt that he was guilty of very heinous crimes. You can quibble about how legally perfect his trial was, but I don't believe that a fairer tribunal would have come to a different conclusion. So one argument against capital punishment - that it can't be reversed if the criminal is subsequently found to be innocent - doesn't apply.

More importantly, while incarceration can deal with the danger that most criminals present to the community, in the case of Saddam, it can't. While he was alive he represented an unacceptable security risk, so it is reasonable and just that he be permanently removed.

But I still feel regret at the necessity of his death. I am also conscious, as he himself argued with his captors, that along with the bad he did some good. Not nearly enough in my mind to redeem him, but who am I to make that judgement?

While I was one of the people who initially supported the idea Saddam Hussein being executed, it is only now that my young son who is almost ten, told me that you can see pictures on the internet of Saddam's grizzly end. No thanks, but I find it scary that a child that young can see a picture of someone's execution and not be upset by it. He just shrugged his shoulders when he talked about it and described the picture. My eight and a half year old daugher doesn't seem that concerned either, although she didn't see the pictures.

What other kind of end did Hussein deserve? None of us has the power to command his execution, but it is not unfair to say that for his crimes he will not find it easy to meet his maker. Whether or not he is ever forgiven for his crimes is God's decision.

I have no doubt that the crimes committed by Saddam Hussein deserved the death penalty - but I also see little difference with the death squads currently operating in Iraq. Will current Iraqi leaders face the same fate...will George W Bush and will Donald Rumsfeld? I doubt it ... but they are just as guilty.

Graham Young rather than “I still feel regret at the necessity of his death.”

I regret the necessity of the death of his victims, which provided evidence of the monstrosity of the man.

Rather than regret the necessity of his death, I regret the occurrence of his birth.

The world is not a perfect place, bad things happen.

We can all work to improve the state of mankind. One way of doing that is to terminate the perpetrators of horror before they add to the count of their victims.

As is written, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”

Hanging Sadaam ensures he will not triumph.

Freeranger “Will current Iraqi leaders face the same fate...will George W Bush and will Donald Rumsfeld? I doubt it ... but they are just as guilty”

I would request you justify that statement

The justification for the statement is self evident Col Rouge if you just look at the civilian casualty figures since the war was 'won'.
Leaving aside the US military casualties, reports indicate that over 52,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed and that number appears to be escalating at an almost unimagineable level. Some reports show the current figures at around 200 per day.

GrahamY

I wasn't well this morning, so I didn't go to church, so I don't know what my fellow church members feel about this, but have to agree with you about the feelings of regret. On the Christian internet forums that I am part of, most of them American, I find the same feelings of regret that it had to come to this as you state. Especially from people who never expect to feel this way.

Some like me, wish he had discovered Christ.

This is part of what I posted on another discussion on this site:

Pity Sadam didn't find Christ before he died, that's the saddest thing about this whole business. We know he had at least one, I dare say nominal, Christian in his cabinet, Tariq Azziz. If he believed in spreading his faith, obviously Sadam didn't want to know.

The one good thing about Sadam was that he didn't hate the Christians as much as most Muslims. He even allowed the Bible Society of Jordan to set up a Bible printing shop in Iraq.

The Christians of Iraq have been suffering terribly since the war, because they are seen as being on the side of the "invaders" because of their common religion. Many of them have fled to neighbouring Jordan and Syria. The Shiites who are in power want them all gone. Yet the Christians (Assyrians) were there before the Arab Muslim invasions in the 7th or 8th centuries.

We are supposed to believe that the minority Sunnis have only been in power over the majority Shiites since Sadam Hussein gained power. It has been this way for four hundred years, since the Ottoman Turks gained power over this region

Posted by GrahamY, Sunday, 31 December 2006 4:43:50 PM
"While he was alive he represented an unacceptable security risk, so it is reasonable and just that he be permanently removed."

I think you hit a very important nail on the head there. A great many people run into difficulty because they have simply accepted the presumption that sentence is wholey and soley punitive and havent realized that there are significant other aspects to sentencing.

To me it is the same rationale (though obviously not the same scale) as the putting-down of a mad dog. No sane person blames the dog for being mad, it is not being punished for its attacks on people but it is a danger for as long as it is alive so it has to die.

The euthanazing is not done as a punishment, it is done wholey and soley to protect the community.

Hey Mod - when are we going to get italics?

I think that Saddam's expedient execution for one of his lesser alleged crimes has avoided all manner of embarrassing complications in now hypothetical trials he might have had, concerning events that might have implicated certain world powers - that are currently somewhat unsuccessfully engaged in a war of occupation in the country of which he was the former president.

As for God's mercy, messengers, prophets and other figments - whatever. All the religious crap associated with his death doesn't ameliorate the fact that all those who celebrate Saddam's execution are diminished by it.

Personally, I would have liked him to have had the opportunity to spill the beans on his accomplices in his crimes against humanity, after which they could have sent him to Guantanamo Bay, as far as I'm concerned. I understand it's pretty secure, and beyond the reach of international humanitarian organisations etc.

And there's apparently no escape, even for those who haven't been found guilty of anything...

Freeranger “The justification for the statement is self evident Col Rouge if you just look at the civilian casualty figures since the war was 'won'.”

I do not think that really does answer my request, which was

” “Will current Iraqi leaders face the same fate...will George W Bush and will Donald Rumsfeld? I doubt it ... but they are just as guilty”

I would request you justify that statement”

Sadaam’s capacity for direct murder is not comparable to what are consequential deaths as a result, in part, of Sadaam’s own displaced supporters, both Iraqi and insurgent, venting a war of attrition on everyone.

I recall the "no fly zones" which the US And British policed prior to the liberation of Iraq. I recall the reason for those "no fly zones" was to prevent Sadaam using his airforce to gas and murder the population of Marsh Arabs, in the South and Kurds in the North.

I think your assertion that “but they are just as guilty” is not "self evident", I think it is a complete nonsense, perhaps the throw away line of a cynic.

If you want to try and justify your assertion again, please have another go but I expect greater depth and substance than what you have just tried to gloss the comment over with.

I think there is little point in pursuing this 'justification' line. If you refuse to see any similarities in the actions of US and allied forces and the bloody activities of Iraq's former dictator then nothing anyone can say is likely to change your mind.

Freeranger “I think there is little point in pursuing this 'justification' line. If you refuse to see any similarities in the actions of US and allied forces and the bloody activities of Iraq's former dictator then nothing anyone can say is likely to change your mind.”

Sorry, putting things in the “oh its all just too hard basket” does not work. You made the statement, now justify it!

Alternatively, I wilI take your decision not to answer what is a reasoned question to mean you have no justification on which you base your cynical throw-away line.

It is annoying when people waste space with cute comments which they then refuse to justify.

You would be better off finding some other pursuit, try reading “Dolly” instead, it presents fewer challenges than being expected to stand behind what you write.

You can take any way you like CR. You obviously want to live in a dream.

Dear Graham, to be perfectly honest, I felt sorry for Sadaam, and took no personal joy in his grisly death. May God indeed have mercy on his soul, yes, but Gods mercy is based on His revealed self. If I might point to the words of our Lord and the very first word of the 'good' news..the Gospel is.. 'repent' ...for the kingdom of God is at hand.

Sadaam had the chance to say something like "I now commit my soul into the hands of Almighty God, may He forgive me of my sins" I probably would not have even written my other piece. But because he claimed specifically that "Mohammed is the Messenger of God".... I take issue with this.

Paul was red hot on 'those preaching another gospel' even to the point of saying "Let them be eternally condemned" (Galatians 1) so, it is no light thing to mess with the Word of Salvation in Gods eyes.

Its nice to hear of you sharing in fellowship 'as' part of the Church at the place of worship... I hope and pray that they will proclaim the Gospel there, and call on one and all, individual and national, to repentance and humble worship.

I don't subscribe to the view 'One God, many roads' as I find this contrary to scripture. There are many paths to Christ, but only one way to God, and that is indeed our Lord and Saviour. Outside of scripture, we are simply speculating.

C.J. I note that you seek to use even Sadaams death to connect your Great Satan figure the USA to various crimes, but while you have a point, you fail to point to your 'good guy' who will bring us all to Utopia. Hmmm would it be International Socialism ? (choke) or worse 'Bob Brown' ?

freeranger "You can take any way you like CR. You obviously want to live in a dream. "

the whimp speaks

Boaz: "C.J. I note that you seek to use even Sadaams death to connect your Great Satan figure the USA to various crimes, but while you have a point, you fail to point to your 'good guy' who will bring us all to Utopia. Hmmm would it be International Socialism ? (choke) or worse 'Bob Brown' ? "

Only those who suffer from religiously-inspired delusions would refer to the USA as the "Great Satan". I certainly didn't.

Similarly, the need for an imagined Utopia and 'good guy' to follow is also characteristic of those who don't have sufficient moral and intellectual resources to deal with the world rationally. As far as I'm aware "international socialism" is now largely restricted to the naive fantasies of a handful of wide-eyed uni students and their feral hangers-on.

Certainly, I don't imagine that Bob Brown (or any other Green parliamentarian) would want to be associated with the credulous ideology of "international socialism", since they invariably take any opportunity to distinguish themselves from the remnant wannabe "trotskyist" elements who try to hijack the Green movement to their doomed cause.

I hold no brief for Saddam but his army was beaten, he was found in a hole in the ground, he had some sort of a farsical trial and then hung by the neck.
He was a defeated person, family dead or scattered. I do not know but was he any worse than any other totalitarian leader? Did he do worse than others?
Better had they put a bullet in his brain when he was found.
It is a dark victory.

"...but Gods mercy is based on His revealed self."
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 1 January 2007 8:09:27 AM

I thought that Jesus' prayer on the Cross, 'Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do.' established that Christian forgiveness and mercy operated irrespective of the ignorance or revelation of the recepient.

CR, I doubt this will do any good because the only information you want to believe comes straight from the Pentagon. It doesn’t really matter what you or I believe, in the ultimate it will be a judge who will decide the guilt or innocence of war criminals (if they are allowed). There are many international lawyers who are trying to get a hearing against US officials. Donald Rumsfeld’s crimes are more than the war of aggression in Iraq. Lawyers claim evidence that he participated in the highest levels of decision-making allowing the extrajudicial execution of several people. This breaches the Geneva Convention and constitutes a war crime. You may not acknowledge the authenticity of the material, but in his book Chain of Command: The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib, Seymour Hersh described the special-access program (SAP) established by Bush. It authorized the Defence Department to set up a team of Special Forces to operate outside the confines of international law and assassinate anyone considered a high-value Al Qaeda operative, anywhere in the world. Rumsfeld expanded SAP into Iraq in August 2003.
Rumsfeld sanctioned torture and degrading treatment, which are also breaches of the Geneva Convention. Rumsfeld authorised the interrogation and torture of a Saudi detainee, Mohamed al-Qahtani, at Guantánamo in late 2002. Rumsfeld was given weekly updates on the progress of the interrogation. As Commander in Chief George W Bush was also aware of the interrogation techniques.
If they were not responsible for war crimes, Bush would hardly have taken steps to protect officials in his administration from prosecution in the International Criminal Court. All I am suggesting is that if the rule of law is supposedly what underpins our civilisation – how can you or anyone else justify a double standard

Freeranger, I think you have a point, but it's not likely to take you too far. Punishment for war crimes is only ever handed out by those who lead victorious armies, and I can't think of a single instant where the commander-in-chief or any other high level war leader on the winning side has been punished for war crimes.

I also can't think of any wars where both sides haven't committed war crimes of varying sorts. If you were going to try Rumsfeld you also ought to try Clinton for his part in the bombing of Yugoslavia 7 or so years ago. And straight after WWII you would have been wanting to try Churchill as well for the fire bombing of Dresden and Roosevelt for dropping the atomic bomb. Targetting civilian infrastructure is also illegal at international law.

But if you did prosecute everyone for war crimes, then you'd never be in a situation to use force against an enemy, which is an untenable position. Perhaps the function of the concept of war crime is to validate a cold-blooded killing of an enemy because killing them in action wasn't available to you. They're not being killed primarily for what they've done, but as an extension of the military action that you've commenced.

Saddam Hussein made violence (assault, torture, murder, rape) a part of his mode of governance. That is, he tied "public order" to "criminal acts" which he authorized. Where then to draw a clear line between the criminal and non-criminal? His subjects lived in fear, because there was no line other than his own whim, or the whims of his sons.

According to one news report, he killed or had killed at least a million people (men, women, children, infants). Line up ten people, then twenty, then a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand, one hundred thousand -- it still doesn't reach a million. Walk that line.

Did he deserve to be executed? If he didn't deserve to be, then who?

Allow him to be your next door neighbor? Would you be safe? Would your spouse and your children? If you believe you would, consider his habitual preference for killing those who didn't agree with him. Invite him to tea and disagree with him....

Consider his funding of $25,000. payments to suicide bombers i.e. his funding of murder.

One purpose of state execution is to stop the violent who refuse to stop their acts of violence against the innocent. Saddam Hussein was a ruthless gang leader with national power -- power over an entire nation. His favorite movie was The Godfather. When Al Pacino in the movie has his brother killed, Saddam probably learned from that that murdering his brothers-in-law was "okay," if not "macho."

Think of a toddler with a toddler's immature brain, with the power to kill anyone who doesn't answer to his infantile needs. A formula for civil chaos, for unmediated death and destruction. That would be Saddam Hussein.

GY,

To be honest I felt a bit empty watching SH in the gallows. We have watched the whole war on TV, seen children pulled from the rubble, the dead bodies of innocent people, the beheading of prisoners etcetera. I sometimes worry that I've become desensitised to watching these scenes on the box.

But this was different because it was someone familiar to me. Saddam Hussein.

It was inevitable that he should die but one would think it should have been done with more dignity for all concerned. The Iraqi government in consultation with the Americans did not put much thought into this execution at all.

If his death was meant to contribute to a sense of restorative justice it failed dismally. If anything, it debased the efforts of those who want peace in Iraq.

And today in Queensland it was reported that the serial killer Leonard Fraser died of a heart attack and I thought 'good riddance'. But maybe JC was right about the role forgiveness plays in how we develop a longer strategic plan for peace on earth and good will to all men. Or is this being too unrealistic

Well I had my thoughts about Saddam, when I knew that they were about
to string him up. He certainly was a larger then life, charismatic
fellow, who was not stupid. He was fully aware of how to use ruthless
violence to achieve his objectives, at virtually any price.

So I don't think that any god should show any mercy, Saddam certainly
didn't.

They had to string him up, just to bring some peace of mind to the
tens of thousands of people whose lives he affected, many who claim
it was the happiest day of their lives when they did! Most of us
have a natural deep sense of justice, it needed to be seen to be
done, in the case of such a ruthless tyrant.

"Consider his funding of $25,000. payments to suicide bombers i.e. his funding of murder."

Hang on, if somebody chopped off a piece of the USA and claimed it
as their own, would you not protest violently? Saddam was not
much religious, but he did believe in the Arab cause.

Should we hang George for his crimes? I think there is a difference.
Saddam was quite smart and was well aware of the consequences of
his actions. We can't say the same for George. Sheer stupidity is
not a good reason to hang people

I had to wonder at the modern notion of celebrity-as-currency until I read this thread about Saddam Hussein's execution. We have been bombarded with images of people killed in war for years - innocent people; babies, children and unarmed peasants. And now this one guy dies, who everyone acknowledges was at the very least an utterly ruthless leader, with many deaths to his soul - and we are supposed to care more about him because he is FAMOUS.

Dear Ranier
yes.. Jesus... the Christ was entirely correct, but you have not quite put the balanced picture mate. As I've said in other places, the first word of the Good News is...'Repent' it is followed by 'believe' and the consequence of that 2 fold action is.. "forgiveness".

In the case of those who have done us or those close to us, or in general committed horrendous crimes or brutality, we can take 2 approaches.
Using the natural human and dare I say it "Muslim" approach, we can allow hatred of 'The Great Satan' or.. some Cartoons, or Infidels in general to consume us, and our lust, hunger and thirst for 'Revenge' can totally overwhelm us and actually direct and control our life direction. The Christian approach, is not so much to forgive unrepentant sin, as God will indeed make every man account for his life, but to leave it TO God. (but see Ephesians 5:11 about my 'rants')

I still am haunted (when I allow it) by an act of brutality against myself which occurred when I was 17. A sadistic bloke from the year ahead of me decided to show me just how pathetic I was, and beat my chest and shoulder almost literally to a pulp. My greatest regret about that, is that I just stood there and took it, while I could see the unbridled evil in his eyes as he pounded away. Even then, I think I could have taken him, or at least given a good account for myself, but we had been systematically terrorized for over 12months. I saw a photo of that bloke a year back, and I must confess I felt like repeating the same words back to him in person, as he used on me that day, and following up with beating him to within an inch of his life.
But thats 'me'. When I allow Christ to dwell in my mind and heart, I don't even think about that bloke. One day, he will face God and justice will indeed be done.

That is also Sadaams experience.

Saddham was a product of a violent culture that has been like this for centuries.There are many more like him in Iraq waiting to fill the void.He was executed quickly in the hope his supporters will quickly wilt.

I doubt that the culture of violence will ever leave Iraq,since after centuries of survival of the most violent,they are left with a culture ingrained with this genetic propensity.This reality coupled with religious dogma that ignores all logic does not make for a very bright future.

If the US stays,the violence will continue,if they leave,chaos and civil war will prevail without the force of a ruthless dictator.

Which will be worse,a ruthless dictator or millions suffering in a protracted civil war?

The veneer of civilisation is indeed very thin and we need to take heed of this when formulating our immigration policies.

I can't help wondering if he will be considered a matryr by some extremist group or another and his death will be used to promote violence. How do both sides evaluate that possibility?

Bugger, I knew any mention of JC would attract BD and his mobile pulpit and lashings of god botherings.

Does anyone know someone who can perform exorcisms on-line? Surely there's some freeware we can download and deploy - a bit like virus software I would imagine.

Perhaps I can add something to this;
I have an indirect relative who was imprisoned by Saddam Hassian for
eight years as a hostage for the release of an assassin that was gaoled
by the British for attempted murder in London of an Iraqi dissadent.
The case was well publicised at the time.
He was tortured in their prison and still suffers his injuries.
As he said, why torture him, there was nothing to gain. He had been
lured there to discuss a business deal and was arrested when he got off the plane.
Discussing this with him at Christmas, his comment was that westerners
do not really understand the mentality of the Arabs and their religious
context. His statement was that they do not think like us at all.
It is this mental process that leads them to send a van with a suicide
driver to pick up a group of poor day labourers looking for work and then
blow them all to pieces.

It is as natural for them to kill Saddam Hussien as it would be to swat a fly.

So lose no sleep over that murderer and tyrant.

Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 2 January 2007 7:29:41 AM
Dear Ranier
yes.. Jesus... the Christ was entirely correct, but you have not quite put the balanced picture mate. As I've said in other places, the first word of the Good News is...'Repent' it is followed by 'believe' and the consequence of that 2 fold action is.. "forgiveness".

It wasnt Ranier it was me. And your argument is entirely inconsistent (as usual). Clearly there was no repentence on the part of those torturing Jesus to death and couldnt be because they didnt even realize what they were doing and yet they were forgiven. Take a course in logic David. I know that YOU said 'repentence is required' in other places but Christianity is supposedly based on the teaching of Jesus not on the teaching of Boaz.

Good God Rob, didn't you realise that Boaz was omnipotent?

"Discussing this with him at Christmas, his comment was that westerners
do not really understand the mentality of the Arabs and their religious
context. His statement was that they do not think like us at all."

Extremely good point and so often forgotten by us arrogant
Westerners, who think that we can just breeze in anywhere and
they will then think like us. The US neocons have learnt the
hard way, that its simply not the case, despite all their
weapons and bombs. It seems they learnt nothing from Vietnam.

BD, has it every occured to you, that you are as fanatical about
religion, as say the Taliban? Had you been born in Afgahnistan,
chances would be 95% that you would today be a devout muslim :)

Thers is no God but Jesus and Boazy is his messenger :)

It's amazing to see people discussing the rights and wrongs of Saddam Hussein's execution.

Are you not all forgetting that this creature's regime had live people put through an instrument something like a huge paper shredder?

I don't remember a lot of discussion on that subject.

Rainier, I knew that Boaz would be drawn in, but I deliberately chose "God", wondering whether others of an Islamic persuasion might be interested. And anyway, the phrase is so common it's almost secular. It wasn't meant, by me anyway, to be so much an expression of religious faith as solidarity with human kind.

To answer a post of Robert's, I don't think it's because Hussein was a celebrity that we're interested in his execution. I think it's because of our attitudes to capital punishment, and also anyone being killed cold-bloodedly. If he'd been blown up during the conflict by a US missile or bomb I think my reaction would have been quite different.

Freeranger “CR, …. the only information you want to believe comes straight from the Pentagon.”

Strange, you who declined to answer until embarrassed into doing so opens your response with an scurrilous and inaccurate assessment of my reading habits.

Is your reasoning so weak that you need to play the man before you get around to the topic?

As for “There are many international lawyers who are trying to get a hearing against US officials”

Well if they were either any good or if they had evidence I am sure those “international lawyers” would be doing something.

Until then I am sure you would be first to agree, someone is innocent until proven guilty or do you prefer trial by innuendo?

“which are also breaches of the Geneva Convention.”

Again, bring on the law suites!

“Bush would hardly have taken steps to protect officials in his administration from prosecution in the International Criminal Court.”

The US position on vexatious prosecution is understood. However, Belgium undertakes prosecution of non-nationals in matters of war crimes and other excesses. I see no cases against US officials pending in Belgium.

Try again and try without the childish presumptions.

Arjay “Which will be worse, a ruthless dictator or millions suffering in a protracted civil war?”

I understand what you are suggesting and the answer is simple.

Suffering the 1 year reign of a ruthless dictator, followed by a civil war is infinitely better than 20 years reign of a ruthless dictator, followed by the same a civil war.

Assuming the civil war is inevitable, then the sooner it starts, the sooner it will be over.

mjpb:” considered a matryr by some extremist group or another and his death will be used to promote violence.”

Ultimately, Sadaam Hussein will be less a focal point for insurgency and civil war, as a dead martyr than a live one.

Leigh “Are you not all forgetting that this creature's regime had live people put through an instrument something like a huge paper shredder?”

Exactly leigh. The selective Anti-Coalition memory of malcontents

"To answer a post of Robert's, I don't think it's because Hussein was a celebrity that we're interested in his execution. I think it's because of our attitudes to capital punishment, and also anyone being killed cold-bloodedly."

Actually Graham, I think that subconciously, good old tribalism
plays a role here. Out of sight is out of mind, is very true. Every
day we hear about some tragedy, where 100 plus people were killed in
some part of the world, we don't blink an eyelid. Yet if somebody
who we know a bit better, is closer to us etc, is diagnosed with
cancer or whatever, we are majorly concerned.

Through the medium of reality tv, we all know one hell of a lot
about Saddam Hussein. 100 people a day die in Iraq and we don't
react, but we react to what happened to Saddam. Reason being we
knew one hell of a lot about this guy, we knew nothing of the
100 daily killed.

So I think its simply our minds reacting to what is closer to
us and Saddam was closer in the sense that we know so much about
him, have heard his rants, etc. etc. He's not just another
statistic, as the 100 others are, who die in Iraq daily, they
are just faceless numbers.

RANIER first :) sorrrrry mate.. I must be a right pain in the rear.
But if you don't have someone to whinge about..what would life be ? :)

Rob, no, it was Rainer not you.. Ranier said "maybe JC was right about forgiveness"

But your point about Jesus cry to the Father on the Cross, 'Father forgive them' I understand to be more of an outpouring of Gods incredible love for mankind, that specific teaching on the subject of forgiveness without repentance. Note Peter in Acts2, speaking to the same people

"23 This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[d] put him to death by nailing him to the cross."

37When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"

NOW...we have it.

38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins."

Stephen, while being stoned said:

59While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." 60Then he fell on his knees and cried out, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them."

Its a cry of love from the heart. But ultimately, repentance is the key to forgiveness.

Oh that we all would know this love. Sometimes I'm like Moses. God told him SPEAK to the stone and water will come out. But, Moses WHACKED the stone while rebuking the recalcitrant Israelites. (Numbers 20:7-11)
Its so easy to be like that..

C.J. thanx for the promotion :) You should re-phrase it as follows:
"And to the extent Boazy speaks faithfully to Scripture, he is one of Gods messengers". Nothing special about me though, in fact many 'UNspecial' things.
Your assessment of Socialists as the ferals and their hangers on, is spot on, having witnessed them at 2 demonstrations now.

I agree that Saddam was a war criminal but the point of his hanging was purely symbolic. He didn't want to live, he wanted a firing squad as this would be more heroic way to go. They succeeded in humiliating his legacy.

The message from the west was the extent of disgust towards terrorism. This was tokenistic justice for those hundreds that were killed under his regime.

With this aside, the defiance of Saddam represents an idea much like Guy Folks was to England and Ned Kelly was to Australia. Admittedly, neither Guy Folks nor Ned Kelly were mass murderers in their time. Nor were they in positions of power in Government. They all had cult followings that turned their stories into heroic struggles. This is something we cannot deny.

In strategy, his hanging was indelicate and untimely. The human rights activists are more concerned about the reactions to the event rather than the verdict itself.

We really must stop finger pointing to the US when Australia is virtually a twin under John Howard.

The coat hanger at NYE, that is, the night of Saddam Hussein's death, was verging on inciting violence from those in the Islamic community. They may not have agreed with Saddam and his Bath Party, but could see this as dancing on the graves of their "matyrs". Here we are, celebrating under a coat hanger, Saddam hangs. Was that smart?

Islamic culture follows numerology and takes ritual and symbolism very seriously. This is not the time to draw attention to Australia, and have symbols that, by accident, celebrates a death.

Of course it was part of the 75th anniversary of the Harbor Bridge, but do religious fundamentalists believe in coincidence?

saintfletcher said:
The coat hanger at NYE, that is, the night of Saddam Hussein's death, was verging on inciting violence from those in the Islamic community. They may not have agreed with Saddam and his Bath Party, but could see this as dancing on the graves of their "matyrs". Here we are, celebrating under a coat hanger, Saddam hangs. Was that smart?
unquote

What utter nonsense, who cares anyway that Saddam met his end 10,000
miles away on New Years Eve, by our time.
As if we should give away our celebrations just because there was to be
an excecution in another part of the world.
Anyway judging by what was televised from Auburn they were not unhappy
about it all.
For heavens sake (no pun intended) get some perspective on it all.

I'm glad we don't have the death penalty...and that we never lived under the regime of Saddam Hussein or any of the other mad men that get inflicted on innocents across the world.

Saddam's passing is no tragedy, even if the means was. Can't help but think of those Kurdish children who spewed, gurgled and shook to death with the evil impact of nerve agents. There is nothing humane or dignified about Saddam's life or his death.

Saddam ,so many say, was responsible for killing large amounts of people.
But isn't that the way of life[and death] in the Middle East? It is the normal pattern, has been so for ever and unless there is some earth shattering change , it will go on .
The worst bit is that we have permitted the very same people to immigrate here, bringing all their hatreds and violence with them. When their rightful place is the Middle East where the violence belongs.
Saddam was normal, usual.....for the ME. There are plenty more like him.

"To answer a post of Robert's, I don't think it's because Hussein was a celebrity that we're interested in his execution. I think it's because of our attitudes to capital punishment, and also anyone being killed cold-bloodedly. If he'd been blown up during the conflict by a US missile or bomb I think my reaction would have been quite different."
Posted by GrahamY, Tuesday, 2 January 2007 9:10:25 PM

Even if he was killed in a bomb blast he would still have got a lot more press than any unfamiliar innocent killed cold-bloodedly. There is an important principle in life, relationships and propaganda and that is, 'what the eye does not see, the heart does not grieve over.'

Look at the outcry over the death of this one man - there has been no similar outcry about the death of any one of the innocent 'nobodies' who died in Kurdistan or Dujail.

All the issues you raised are true and legitimate - things are rarely just simple but my point is still valid because the fame is still an essential factor, ie when you remove it the result changes.

There has been so much reaction and response to Saddam Hussein's death because we were made more intimate to it and we were made more intimate to it by the coverage of it - and Saddam got the coverage because he was famous.

Boazy - you accept Old Testament references over the word of Jesus? You add fuel to my argument of another thread that modern Christianity is merely Judaism rebranded - with the word of Jesus being ignored if it doesnt suit - remember 'Love thy Enemies, do good works for those who mercilessly use and despise you.' I dont see too many 'Christian' world leaders 'loving their enemies' do you?

ROB513....

Not taking the Old Testament above Jesus.

On a personal level. The spirit of Jesus words "Love your enemies" applies. On a State level, Romans 13:1-5 applies.

Note I said the 'spirit' of Jesus words ?

Read the whole sermon on the mount... 'Gouge your eye out' if it sins.
...allows 2 sins. Hands.. cut them off... allows 2 more sins.

The spirit of those words ? "put sin as far away from your heart as possible"..

"Love your enemies" ?

PAUL Romans 12:14

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position.[c] Do not be conceited.

17Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath.

COMMENT. "Evil" is where actions stem from sadistic pleasure.
It does not mean you cannot see justice done.
"What is right in the eyes of everybody" (eye for an eye is LIMITING punishment to the crime committed)

"Revenge" is about personal and carnal satisfaction, rather than justice. Yes, God will judge (for eternity), but in the mean time, justice must be upheld (See Rom 13)

cheers

DB Now you are putting the vindictive, self-appointed apostle Paul above Jesus - Jesus!

Dear Rob... its not a matter of one above the other.

I don't find Paul to be vindictive... any reason for you to say that ?

Apart from that.. please have a look at this, its most important.

http://islamicsydney.com/story.php?id=2996
and this
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/local-push-for-islamic-state/2007/01/08/1168104922239.html

And.. it might give you an inkling of why my concern is so strong.
You might also have a quick peak at the underlying mindset framework of the above by referring to this additional information (compiled by myself)
http://www.truetruth.wikispaces.com

You will clearly see from this, that the reference in the story to 'peaceful' means is quite deceptive based on Islamic history.

I hope and pray that you can see past what at the present time seem to be some spiritual barriers to full committment, and eventually come to share the life which is in Christ.