Jump to content

Talk:Execution of Saddam Hussein: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
CyborgTosser (talk | contribs)
Mystman666 (talk | contribs)
Line 351: Line 351:


http://www.nos.nl/nosjournaal/artikelen/2006/12/30/301206_reacties.html
http://www.nos.nl/nosjournaal/artikelen/2006/12/30/301206_reacties.html
''' "Het recht heeft zijn loop gehad, in moeilijke omstandigheden"''' <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Mystman666|Mystman666]] ([[User talk:Mystman666|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mystman666|contribs]]) 11:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
''' "Het recht heeft zijn loop gehad, in moeilijke omstandigheden"''' -- '''[[User:Mystman666|Mystman666]]''' <sup> ([[User talk:Mystman666|Talk]])</sup> 11:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:07, 30 December 2006

Article Locking

Would whoever locked the article please add the apropos banner to the top of the article itself? Thanks Sixty Six 08:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Final Words

Should the content of Saddam's final statement go into this article, a different Hussein article, or a completely new one? I find the content of the letter relevant but I am too inexperienced to know where this important piece of history would fit in. Nobuyuki 05:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be appropriate to place here, and then it may be moved/copied to other articles as necessary.Viperphantom 06:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One article, either this one or the main Saddam article, quoted him as saying the Arabic for "Allah is great". That always strikes me as Judeo-Christian-centrism. Maybe a Muslim reading this can help out. "Allah" simply means "God" ("the only God"), does it not? Then it should be translated as "God is great". Do you get what I'm getting at? Wahkeenah 06:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "God is great" is pretty much well known to be "Allahu akbar" if that helps at all. 68.106.28.206 07:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I heard on CNN that his final word was the name of one of his political opponents. I guess I should look for a source for that, but I guess it's possible I just misheard. Mikeliveshere 08:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I came to this article looking to find Saddam Hussein's final words, as uttered from his mouth before he was hung to death. I don't know if any formal statement made before his execution counts as his "final words". So if anyone can verify the actual words he spoke, please include them in this article, in both Arabic script, Word-Literal translation, and Meaningful translation. ~ Eric 67.42.131.27 08:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protection?

Someone should request a semi-lock for this article because it's bound to be vandalised. I would do myself, but I don't know how. Janipewter 03:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admins usually lock pages, as I'm one myself on another wiki, but I'm not one here. Go here to request protection of a page. Øřêōş 03:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I too believe this page should be semi-protected to stop people from posting stupid things
I am not sure. Many contributions are made by anonymous users. Rockvee 04:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I just removed some vandlism so I think a lock might be wise 205.250.227.87 05:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we are all watching for vandalism, I'm editing heavily too, no need for locking right now. 65.13.3.52 05:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also watching for vandalism, we'll keep them at bay! Viperphantom 05:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok, all hang out too, helping where I can 205.250.227.87 05:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, there definitely is vandalism going on, keep an eye out everyone. Thanks to whoever removed the "saddam.exe" Viperphantom 05:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Please do lock. When Irwin died, some joker put porn on his page. Geobeedude 05:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asking them on IRC now to have it locked down a bit.--BC 06:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will concur with the lock. As much good as anonymous users can do for these pages, the potential for vandalism is higher; I just saw some vandalism removed just now before I was able to get to it (damn 56k...), but I'd prefer if it didn't need to be removed in the first place. --Lord Kelvin 06:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, lock is a good idea. Thanks admins. Viperphantom 06:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be semi-locked now. :) --BC 06:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's unnecessary to lock it. It's been doing good. Irwin's article is wholly irrelevant to this. ~ UBeR 07:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

The entire scope of the article is covered under Saddam's main page. I think this needs to be merged or put up for deletion. Rrten00 03:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be appropriate to merge the article with the Trial of Saddam page, but not with Saddam's main page. Viperphantom 04:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you. There isn't a good reason to treat the execution as a separate entity from the trials; it's the conclusion of that process. Giving it a section in that article still allows nice hyperlinks to the specific section The Monster 04:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep this separate until it settles down. Much easier to edit that way. --Hopex 04:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know how events in Iraq will proceed. The execution of the warrant could lead to huge backfire which would make a separate article useful. If it is merely an event of one day then it should be merged with the trial but not Saddam overall, whose article is already too long, and the details of his trial and death unimportant to his overall life. 195.137.93.230 05:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well, the page should not be merged at this time for reasons stated by 195.137.93.230. Give the page sometime and then it can be decided whether it should be merged or not. --Credema 11:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was some car bombings in Madrid and it's unknown whether or not this is related to the Saddam Execution. I agree, this should be merged with the trial proceedings, but lets wait a day to see the Iraqi and global reaction. If there is a huge global response than this day will be significant, otherwise the successful carrying out of his sentence is nothing more than part of the trial proceedings that does not warrant its own article.--71.194.128.49 09:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC) This article does need to be merged. The basic gist of it should go on the Saddam Hussein page and the preponderance of it should go on the Trial of Saddam Hussein page. This event, in and of itself, isn't notable, per the lack of Execution of Timothy McVeigh (this link redirects to the Timothy McVeigh article), Execution of Hideki Tojo, and so on. No execution of any person, however important, has warranted a Wikipedia article before, and it certainly doesn't now. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 11:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be a separate article; the Saddam Hussein article is already far too long, and this is a momentous enough event in his life that it deserves its own article. Minor details in the biography are fine, but the whole story should be here, for clarity. -Hobbularmodule 03:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Lennon's death --Gracenotes T § 03:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the main reason for deletion was a bit different, but an article on someone's death is still non-notable, in my opinion, unless there was something about it outside of the context of the person who died. Gracenotes T § 03:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The execution was unremarkable, in the sense that there was (apparently) no deviation from due process. Still, the article is here now, I would suggest giving the article some time, in case the event itself proves notable, otherwise merge. Peter Grey 03:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Come to think of it, it may do the wiki good to have a temporary "hub" wherein content can be organized during this hectic period. If nothing precipitates from his death except for several sparse protests, merge into the Saddam Hussein article; and if not, move this article to something like Saddam Hussein's excecution, or even Saddam Hussein's death, and note non-standard events that occur. But you're right, the primary focus should not be merging it, but writing it. I suppose I was being a bit too immediatist. Thanks for responding. --Gracenotes T § 04:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really have a hard time thinking of a reason this would ever need to be a separate article. --Lukobe 04:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about the fact that Saddam Hussein is 77k? Way too long to merge an article into, especially an article that has improved drasticly in the last half hour and now seems capable of standing alone. Let's keep them separate. Picaroon 07:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this page should exist as a separate article; it is a significant enough event to deserve its own page.Viperphantom 04:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • His execution is an historical event. It deserves the attention that it is recieving. Of course, unless this page is protected you can fully expect the IP vandals to have a field day with it. That is their sick idea of "fun" isn't it? T.E. Goodwin 08:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a matter of the amount of attention one believes the article deserves. The events of today are related to, but distinct from the trial process. The hanging is an event in and of itself. They need to be separate articles. Mynameisryan812 08:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right, then. I'm delighted to have been proven wrong, and also delighted to have taken part in the process of proving myself wrong; to the extent that this article's references have been solidly furnished, unverifiable information removed, and the sections organized to be what they currently are. Perhaps I should have foreseen the Heymann standard, and the miraculous collaborative spirit of Wikipedia, at work. Kudos to all who participated; I should stay up the whole night more often. :p --GracenotesT § 10:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

I recieved the info on the two locations for the execution and the burial info from watching CNN and Fox news.

If you post something, add references. --Ssault 03:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please reference the missing references. --newclear 03:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a reference to "FOX News Alert--TV" because it was neither specific nor readily verifiable. Please review Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability for information on the kinds of sources needed for information in articles. For breaking events, alerts from well-established web-based news organizations are adequate until more detailed information is available. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the quote "The United States is braced for lashback violence due to Hussein's execution." should be removed, because I could not find a reference to that statement on the source listed. Viperphantom 04:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Where is the location of this zone they keep referring to ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Berniethomas68 03:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Green Zone. Picaroon 04:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stub tag

I think the article has developed enough that the stub tag is no longer needed. I'll remove it...--Tiberius47 04:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a watch on this article

It's very likely it will be used by the media (as it has been done before) to show the speed and accuracy the article is created edited etc, I'm moving the moving tags to the talk page for now we can settle that later 65.13.3.52 04:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really, when did he die?

A lot of reports I've seen list the death as 6:05 AM, but this article says 5:55 AM. Most sources claim that the death was shortly before 6AM, but the main article states the death was after 6 AM, last time I checked. Øřêōş 04:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

He died about 10 minutes before 6 am. By sharia law they had to have him hanged before the start of the religious celbration that starts at 6. 65.13.3.52 04:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I have it at 0305 GMT, or 6:05 AM. Either we or CNN has it wrong. And I'm not betting on CNN. Cougar Draven 06:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News originally reported it as being at 6, however they changed it to be between 5:30 and 6. --KCMODevin 06:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Insert non-formatted text here[reply]

Sources

I see a lot of "citation needed" tags - if you're going to add information which you have received from a TV broadcast etc, at least try to include a link to the article on the broadcasters website. Janipewter 04:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brother-in-law and aide not killed

CNN is now reporting that the brother-in-law and other aide were not killed and are still in US Custody. That the Iraqi Government set aside this day just for the execution of Saddam. Did anyone else hear this or know of a weblink to this?209.209.140.19 04:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)amberly[reply]

I heard that on CNN as well, their source was an Iraqi official that they recently talked to. Viperphantom 04:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BBC also reports this. We've already removed the misinformation more than once. --Hopex 05:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CNN's website and the Guardian cite Al Arabiya as saying that all three were hanged. AP is also quoting state TV as saying all three hanged.Reverse Gear 05:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well... they're wrong! They will be executed after next Thursday apparently. --Hopex 05:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the website is not up to date. The report referred to was very recent, and they probably have not had time to update their websites.Viperphantom 05:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect this article

Please unprotect this article for now, All of us (editors) are here reverting. It's best to let the community participate right now as awareness is high. Achille 05:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

its unlocked now...one of the admins must have heard you :) Viperphantom 05:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone just locked it back in but added a boilerplater too, I'm removing it for the moment. Achille 05:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this page should be semi-protected to stop people from posting stupid things. and too keep people that have a account only to write things

At least protect this against IP Vandals --KCMODevin 06:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

To ensure the the same name is in use, refer to Hussein as Saddam in the article. Refer to Saddam Hussein and Talk:Saddam Hussein/naming. I don't beleive a consensus has been made, but everything remains at "Saddam." - Idono 05:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eid ul-Adha

Saddam Hussein's execution took place minutes before Iraqis began celebrating Eid ul-Adha.

I strongly contest the factual accuracy of this statement. Islamic days begin at sundown, not sunrise. I thought only Shi'a Muslims in Iraq went with December 30 as the start of Eid (Sunnis went with December 31). A source on this statement would be appreciated. -- tariqabjotu 05:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that Islamic days begin at sundown, but I am not sure as to the differences between Shi'a and Sunni celebrations.Viperphantom 05:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, the execution took place the day the celebration began, but before the actual celebrations began. Achille 05:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the statement to...

...as many Iraqis began celebrating Eid ul-Adha...

That removes the impression that Eid starts in the morning (because it doesn't) and that everyone in Iraq is celebrating Eid at the same time (as that is not necessarily true). It also removes the overly precise minutes before bit. -- tariqabjotu 05:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come ON!

I wonder if the phrase "No mention of a retrial using Saddam Impersonators has been made" would count as vandalism if I added it. :) ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 05:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what your getting at. It's definetely a not uncommon view that Saddam's trial was illegal or inproper for a variety of reasons including the view Saddam should have been regarded as a POW. Check out Trial of Saddam Hussein Nil Einne 05:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Libya's leader Muammar al-Gaddafi described Saddam's Trial as illegal (باطلة). As a prisoner of war, international conventions prohibit his trial. Qaddafi added that America and Britain must be put on trial in this matter.
Let's see - Saddam didn't get fair trials before Iraqi judges but the Bulgarian nurses in Libya did get fair trials before Libyan judges who refused to hear scientific evidence from anyone but fellow Libyans? Qaddafi is a hypocrite and a loudmouth. Simesa 07:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Even many Americans (US citizens to be technical about it) view it as illegal. But when did the US government ever adhere to international law? Only when conveniant(answer to rhetorical question). Despite it being US Constitutional law to adhere to all treaties it signs. They (gov't as opposed to citizens) violate the constitution every time they violate a treaty. In Iraq? As an occupying power the US has many treaty responsibilities to fulfill. It is basic and most fundamental of US law. It is interesting that they prosecuted him for gassing Kurds but not Iranians during the Iran/Iraq war. Maybe the powers that be didn't want to set a precedent with an international tribunal. Again hypocracy on the part of our fearless leaders who claim to hold others to international law and cry if others suggest it should be held up to them. They pull out the boogie man of low level soldiers being tried on political grounds, but fact of the matter is command responsibility has the greatest weight and most enlisted personal are decent human beings who wouldn't commit heinous crimes. And if they did, even fellow soldiers would be disgusted. Witness Donald Rumsfeld meeting with Hussein AFTER chemical weapons were used. Rumsfeld made no reference to chemical weapons, according to detailed notes on the meeting According to the National Security Archive. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ The US then continued to arm Iraq. These people basically have about zilch for honor. SuperShanity 01:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This speaks to the character of, for example, the U.S. government but speaks nothing to the substantive content in question, namely the legality of Saddam's trial and execution (the legality of the actions of the U.S. and Libyian governments are best addressed elsewhere, right?). I think most can agree that the trial and execution were, at least, not ideal. Perhaps it would have been best for the trial to have taken place on an international scale in international courts. This would add legitimacy to the trial, being a trial by nations and not by what might be seen to be vengeful people. It would also give legitimacy to international law, serving as a demonstration of it's efficacy and pertinence. I think the U.S. government supported the trial being held by the Iraq government because it might give the Iraqi judicial system a sense of legitimacy and effectiveness. However, whether this is true remains to be seen, and I suspect that the Iraqi judicial system has not quite developed to the point that true legitimacy and effectiveness can be granted to it. I think that the trial and execution probably was illegal in terms of international law. Who should be held accountable, and when, however, is best left to be decided further in the future when things have cooled down and a more stable perspective may be acquired.
I don't think any of you have read any of the official court proceedings and transcripts since they've been translated into English. It appears this trial was very thorough and rigid. ~ UBeR 07:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The hypocracy of the US speaks to why Hussein's trial was not held in an international setting and of dubious legality. I doubt a puppet gov't of an illegally occupying force will be of much legitimacy any time soon. SuperShanity 02:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

liberated

"Saddam's eldest daughter Raghad Hussein, exiled in Jordan, has asked that his body be buried in Yemen temporarily until Iraq is "liberated" and it can be reburied in Iraq, a source close to the family said by telephone."

Interesting POV take here. Yes, only insane, stupid people believe Iraq is being occupied and needs to be "liberated". In terms of being fair I believe the entire quote should be posted so there's a full quote instead of just the liberated part in quotations. It's just a little too sarcastic and one-sided.--Apples99 07:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

"Insane, stupid people"? Are you serious? See Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–present#Military occupation. Khoikhoi 07:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Insane stupid people". I was being sarcastic. I forgot that irony is usually lost on wikipedians. The fact that this was attributed to Hussein's daughter and put it quotes makes it sound questionable that Iraq is being occupied when it is in fact being occupied. Whatever Saddam's daughter said, in order for it to be completely unbiased/NPOV, put in the full quotation so it's at least fair.--Apples99 08:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is too hot to handle at the moment, but if someone gets a chance, can you put links around the reporters names? Chadlupkes 05:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

funny edit?

i just saw this under the courtroom picture in this article

"Saddam, as he is sentenced to death by butt sex hanging."

laughed abit, but people doing this sugggest a lock being put on this article as stated above

(PAuLw1985 05:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Threat to US

I strongly disagree that anyone is suggesting that there is a threat to the mainland United States. The Fox article mentioned under responses makes no mention of attacks on US soil. I had changed it so it referred only to violence in Iraq, but someone changed it back. Comments anyone? Viperphantom 05:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pages like this get changed so often, with so much vandalism, that things go awry. I wouldn't worry too much about it. In a week or so it will settle down. Personally, I feel Wikipedia should not bother with ongoing events, given that it's an encyclopedia not a news aggregator, but that's just one guy's view. Reverse Gear 05:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it seemed that someone just speculated that. However I do know that a letter released by the Baath party made the case that saddam is really being killed by the current administration, not by the iraqis and that the administration should expect reprisals. Achille 05:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just read the letter by the Baathist party. It is widely available all over the Internet in the aftermath of the execution. They are blaming the USA and the current government in Iraq, with the typical threats of reprisals which they propagate on a regular basis.T.E. Goodwin 08:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there hasn't been any mention, so far, in what I've seen, that there is any threat here in the the US. I've heard much about the security being tightened in Iraq, but nothing here in the US.Idono 05:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs

When they become available, should photographs of the hanging be placed into the article? Steviedpeele 05:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the copyrights allow, I think they absolutely should be. Viperphantom 05:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with you Viperphantom, however, I believe that the images to be included should be reviewed to ensure that they are of encyclopedic and appropriate content and are not exceptionally graphic. Links to the images should be included though or even possibly substituted for an image on the page. The great kawa 07:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the graphic content of the pictures, I feel that many who would look at the article would be upset or shocked to find such a picture pop up in their face without a warning of some kind. Is there a way to make a link to have the picture come up in a seperate window? After clearly stating the nature of the photograph, of course. That gives the reader the option to see the picture or not, and to prepare themselves for it. Or perhaps 2 articles, one with pictures and one without. This isn't ogrish, after all. Xj14y 08:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Half-brother and aide

Does anyone have a source for the executions for these two occuring next Thursday? The reference in the article states that it might occur on Saturday. Idono 06:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. It didn't make much sense, considering it is Saturday already in Iraq. I have found another reference that states those executions will take place after the holiday. Idono 06:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bandar

Is the Bandar that Saddam's book is to go to the same as his co-defendent, Awad Bandar? If it is his cousin as mentioned in the article, then it is not the Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud currently cited because he is AKA Bandar Bush. Mbrewer 06:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering about this myself. I edited the statement slightly about 20 minutes ago, adding "likely referring to" to the beginning, and cleaning up the grammar a little. Maybe it should read "possibly referring to co-defendant Awad Bandar, or his cousin (name unknown)"... Electrode 06:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the mention of Bandar should be struck from the article entirely. Google and Wikipedia reveal no one named Bandar that is a cousin of Saddam's AFAICT. I'm removing the mention in whole. Revert at will. Mbrewer 06:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if he did in fact say that it should be given to "Bandar", the reference should stay, though with no evidence to support the cousin theory (which seems to have originated here), the speculation over "Bandar's" identity should in fact be removed. I will attempt to do so if no one else has already. Electrode 06:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a citation for the whole give-it-to-Bandar thing? Mbrewer 06:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not mentioned in any of the currently listed references in the article. So, true as it may be, we don't have any evidence of it right at this moment. Thus, I agree with your decision to remove the whole thing, at least until we get a citation. Electrode 07:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Allāhu Akbar"

The source cited doesn't say this at all, it only mentions that "Saddam refused to wear a hood over his head" and he "did make a statement before being executed but he refused to say yet what it was". Are there any reliable sources that state that Saddam yelled "Allāhu Akbar!" before he died? Khoikhoi 06:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Reuters reported that he did say that. The link is too long to put here, but it's the story on the front page of the news section. Viperphantom 06:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide the URL? Khoikhoi 06:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News and their sources are saying he screamed "God is Great" before he died. They are also saying he struggled when he was taken from his cell. --KCMODevin 06:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this should be removed until confirmed. I doubt his last words were in English and should AT LEAST be quoted as he spoke them with translations. Mbrewer 06:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicer words?

I feel a little hostility in the article. Appreciative of his death? What about the other half of the nation that loved him, where are reports on that?

Not sure about 'the other half of the nation that loved him', but I do agree that for the sake of appropriate impartiality and simple factual accuracy we should be careful not to:
1) quote only one news agency prominently (getting a bit tired of seeing FOX quoted as 'gospel'!),
2) report only one 'side' or interpretation of the events (the whole reporting of what actually happened at the execution - Saddam's demeanor, etc, is open to biased interpretation for political gain, for example, and we should be alert to that according to the sources reporting it), and
3) use prose that is un-encyclopaedic and expressing personal viewpoints or prejudices. - 82.152.178.173 06:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well said! I'll see what I can do. This is supposed to be a place of reference, not interpretation. Viperphantom 06:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have since removed the quote about Saddam looking like a "broken man," because it was the opinion of a single Iraqi official, and open to bias. The other quote about him being calm however is more of an observation, not a personal belief, so I kept it. Hope that helps a little....Viperphantom 06:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect statement in related article

The article Halabja poison gas attack says Saddam was not on trial for gassing the Kurds. Is this correct? Simesa 06:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If I heard right, this specific trial had to do with close to 150 specific murders, the event the prosecution thought would be the easiest case to mount. Presumably he would have been tried for other things if he had not been convicted and hanged for this one. Wahkeenah 08:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the execution, Bushflash clip on Saddam Hussein's life & times

The Bushflash clip "Thanks for the Memories" [1] is a haunting short.

Kurt Nimmo [2] wrote the article "Taking Out the CIA's Trash" [3] three years prior to the news of Saddam's death. G.O.L.A.Z. 07:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Press Conferences

I have heard reports that President Bush will address the media around 8 AM EST. I have also heard that there will be an Iraqi press conference around 4:30 AM EST, that Fox News will air. Can anyone else verify this?Mynameisryan812 07:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about that, but in the new Government section I think it should be limited to US, UK, and Australia, to avoid it getting bloated. --Hopex 08:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not include other prominent members of the Coalition? Mynameisryan812 08:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well Poland, S.Korea and middle-east countries perhaps. What I thought we should avoid is getting the reaction from Brazil etc., because where do you stop? Anyway, too late now :) --Hopex 08:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of the countries listed under 'International reaction to the verdict' in the Saddam Trial article should have their reactions in the Execution article. Mynameisryan812 08:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NEWSWEEK/MSNBC Article about Videographer

This information should be added: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16401644/site/newsweek/

Exclusive: Videographer of Saddam Execution

In a NEWSWEEK exclusive, the man hired to videotape Saddam Hussein’s execution recalls the brutal dictator’s humble final moments. WEB EXCLUSIVE By Michael Hastings Newsweek Updated: 2:14 a.m. CT Dec 30, 2006 Dec. 30, 2006 - Ali Al Massedy was 3 feet away from Saddam Hussein when he died. The 38 year old, normally Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's official videographer, was the man responsible for filming the late dictator's execution at dawn on Saturday. "I saw fear, he was afraid," Ali told NEWSWEEK minutes after returning from the execution. Wearing a rumpled green suit and holding a Sony HDTV video camera in his right hand, Ali recalled the dictator's last moments. "He was saying things about injustice, about resistance, about how these guys are terrorists," he says. On the way to the gallows, according to Ali, "Saddam said, ‘Iraq without me is nothing.’"

Ali says he followed Saddam up the gallows steps, escorted by two guards. He stood over the hole and filmed from close quarters as Saddam dropped through—from "me to you," he said, crouching down to show how he shot the scene. The distance, he said, was "about one meter," he said. "He died absolutely, he died instantly." Ali said Saddam's body twitched, "shaking, very shaking," but "no blood," he said, and "no spit." (Ali said he was not authorized to disclose the location, and did not give other details of the room.)

Ali said the videotape lasts about 15 minutes. When NEWSWEEK asked to see a copy, Ali said he had already handed the tape over to Maliki's chief of staff. "It is top secret," he said. He would not give the names of officials in attendance, though he estimates there were around 20 observers. One of them, Iraqi National Security Adviser Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, told CNN that Saddam clasped a Koran as the noose was tied around his neck, and refused to wear a hood. He also said that government officials had not decided whether or not to release the videotape. The execution reportedly took place at 6:05 a.m. local time. Prime Minister Maliki did not attend.

Ali was greeted as a hero when he returned from the execution a little after 7 a.m., flying in with other officials and landing in two helicopters in the Green Zone. A convoy of 20 or so GMCs and Toyota Land Cruisers waited outside to drive some of the Iraqi officials home.

The Iraqi bodyguards, mostly Shiites they said, had passed the time smoking and praying—some prayed on cardboard mats on the street.

It was a cold morning in Baghdad, a few degrees above freezing, and in the post dawn light the guards' breaths could be seen in the air. When the thudding of helicopters began, the body guards rushed towards the entrance to the landing zone. They swarmed around Ali, snapping digital pictures on camera phones and cheering. "Saddam finished, Saddam finished," a guard who gave his name as Mohammed told NEWSWEEK. Ali looked somewhat stunned as he exited, carrying the camera.

"All Iraqis will be happy," he says. "This is the most important day for me [as a cameraman,]" he said. "This page [in history] is over, this page is over. All Iraqis will be happy from the north to the south to the east to the west." One of the judges who presided over the execution then came out to the street; Ali jumped in a car with him. The convoy of SUVs drove off, one after the other, with the occasional honk of the horn.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16401644/site/newsweek/

--Linnwood 07:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Car bombing

"Several hours after the execution was reported, a huge car bomb exploded in a market in the Shi'ite town of Kufa in southern Iraq, resulting in at least 30 casualties. The man suspected of plotting the car bomb has been captured, according to Fox News.[citation needed] This attack cannot yet be linked the Saddam's execution."

If the attack can't be linked to the execution, then it's just speculation that they are connected - WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. Any other opinions? Picaroon 08:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I took it out for you. We'll see how long it stays out. Car bombings happen frequently in Iraq. Putting that blurb in there and then admitting it's not known if there is a connection seems to be subtle POV-pushing. Wahkeenah 08:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"President George W. Bush ... stated that bringing Saddam to justice will not end the violence in Iraq." It is linked to the article in as much as the violence continues after his death. I think it follows nicely from Bush's statement but I understand your position. --Hopex 08:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So your point would be to use that as an example of the violence continuing. That might make more sense if it stopped there and didn't include the question of whether it was related to Saddam's hanging. However, this all really relates more to the Iraq war than to Saddam as such. It's just "business as usual". Wahkeenah 08:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I agree I didn't add the 2nd sentence myself. --Hopex 08:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the sentence. Mynameisryan812 08:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al Arabiya?

Media coverage> The primary source of this news was the Iraqi state-run TV station "Al Arabiya". it's "Al IRAQIA". al arabia isn't an iraqi state-run after all..

Al-Arabya is Yemeni, I think, and sign your posts Izzy1985 08:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is Al-Iraqiya which released the video. Al-Arabiya is based in UAE. ← ANAS Talk? 10:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Howard

I thought Howard was against the death penalty? What a worm. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement, not for engaging in discussion for discussion's sake. Do not use them as a discussion forum." Rafy 09:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madrid Airport Bombing

As of now, this event has nothing to do with Saddam's execution. That said, I have removed "As of 2:34am CST, CNN is reporting that an explosion of undetermined nature and/or source was heard and seen at the airport in Madrid, Spain." from the 'Reaction' section of this article. Mynameisryan812 09:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CNN is linking the two events in its coverage. I see no reason why we shouldn't.—WAvegetarian(talk) 09:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason why we should reprint the preliminary assumptions of a POV'ish TV Channel :) --NIRVn 09:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so a bombing in Iraq with 'no known connection' is subtle-POV pushing but a car bomb at an airport in Spain is relevant simply because "CNN is linking the events in its coverage"? Mynameisryan812 09:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Madrid bombing, if it indeed happened, is also POV-pushing (at this point) to connect it with Saddam's hanging. CNN might do that to try to build a story. We are not CNN. If there is a connection, it will be reported in due time. We must have patience, Grasshopper. Wahkeenah 09:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks..Agreed. Mynameisryan812 09:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why would someone even put that in there? no one has any knowledge that this is even related!--71.194.128.49 09:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

genocide of approximately 180,000 Kurds

From the article:

He was also standing trial for the genocide of approximately 180,000 Kurds during the late 1980s, but the execution ended the trial without a sentence.

Is this an appropriate use of the word "genocide"? I don't mean this to question Saddam's genocidal intentions in the alleged murder of 180,000 Kurds or to imply that there is a POV issue, but as a matter of style this sounds a little funny to me. Genocide by definition is a crime against a group, and it wasn't the 180,000 people that died in particular that Saddam intended to destroy. Maybe something like "...standing trial for his genocide against the Kurds, in which approximately 180,000 Kurds were murdered..." would read better? Actually, that is a little clumsy, but I'm open to suggestions. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 09:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point. Even if I hinted somewhat at my own POV, I made it very clear that my comment was not about POV. If you want to start a discussion about whether the word "genocide" compromises NPOV, could you please do it in a new section? CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 10:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like you asked the question first. How about, "standing trial for killing 180,000 Kurds"? Wahkeenah 10:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What question? If you mean a question about POV, then no, I certainly didn't ask the question first.
Anyway, your version reads better, but removing a hot-button word like "genocide" just because it easier to improve the style isn't acceptable to me. I would like any such discussion to be separate from this one. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 11:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Car bombing over spain airport

Recently a flash came over my desktop; Car bombing over spain airport. source: Indian News channel. Is there anyone who verify this? Guddu 09:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Try looking two topics up. By the way, this event has not been verified to have anything to do with Saddam Hussein. Mynameisryan812 09:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is on the main page

Let's try to keep this article in top shape. --ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 09:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the BODY?

Havent read yet about the body of Saddam. Where is the body of Saddam after execution? Guddu 09:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Heard on CNN a few hours ago, they'd talk with governor and kin of city where Hussein was born and decide from there. Appears very likely he will be buried in Iraq. ~ UBeR 10:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time of Death

There have been differing reports on Saddam's TOD. Some say shortly after 06:00 local time; some say slightly before; some say exactly at 06:00. Until there is an official release, please leave it at 'approximately' 6:00 a.m. local time. ~ UBeR 10:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citatation Needed for the Dutch Political leader reaction...

I have no idea how the reference system works, so somebody else will have to paste this in:

http://www.nos.nl/nosjournaal/artikelen/2006/12/30/301206_reacties.html "Het recht heeft zijn loop gehad, in moeilijke omstandigheden" -- Mystman666 (Talk) 11:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]