Burn a Qu'ran Day.

[Jack Weber]

Yes, all three.

Please provide proof...Please be specific...

[Shady]

Please provide proof...Please be specific...

Easy. Hussein was responsible for far more deaths. Not only his citizens, but also in other countries.

Btw, why the hell do you care so much? What are you secretly related to the Husseins? You trying to rehabilitate his image or something.

Edited August 27, 2010 by Shady

[kimmy]

Mao has all the leftist kooks beaten for sheer body count...

Saddam trumps either Franco,Salazar,or,Suharto??

In the case of Suharto, I believe that a large portion of the carnage was actually at the hands of militias that were not directly under his control (albeit, tolerated by his army... much like the jan jaweed militias in Darfur.)

Saddam is believed to have murdered in the range of 800,000 of his own people, not counting those killed during wars. If I'm not mistaken, that number dwarfs comparable numbers for Franco and Salazar. But I'm certainly no historian.

-k

[Shady]

In the case of Suharto, I believe that a large portion of the carnage was actually at the hands of militias that were not directly under his control (albeit, tolerated by his army... much like the jan jaweed militias in Darfur.)

Saddam is believed to have murdered in the range of 800,000 of his own people, not counting those killed during wars. If I'm not mistaken, that number dwarfs comparable numbers for Franco and Salazar. But I'm certainly no historian.

-k

You're completely right kimmy.

[Jack Weber]

Easy. Hussein was responsible for far more deaths. Not only his citizens, but also in other countries.

Btw, why the hell do you care so much? What are you secretly related to the Husseins? You trying to rehabilitate his image or something.

No specifics...

Please provide a comparison of those numbers...

[Jack Weber]

You're completely right kimmy.

Please provide those specific numbers with a comparison of the the other 3...

[Jack Weber]

In the case of Suharto, I believe that a large portion of the carnage was actually at the hands of militias that were not directly under his control (albeit, tolerated by his army... much like the jan jaweed militias in Darfur.)

Saddam is believed to have murdered in the range of 800,000 of his own people, not counting those killed during wars. If I'm not mistaken, that number dwarfs comparable numbers for Franco and Salazar. But I'm certainly no historian.

-k

In Suharto's case it was almost always about Nationalstic expansion and killing massive amounts of people under the guise of quelling Communism...Kinda like Hernandez in El Salvador...

In Franco's case,he commanded the Army of Africa during the Spanish Civil War and was the lead general in on the Nationalist side.Whatever deaths occurred,even at the hands of his other generals,end up on his list.After the Civil War,besides sending a brigade to Stalingrad to assist the NAZI's,we have the exact same thing that hapens in almost all Fascist states...

Concentration camps

Show trials

Mass executions

Forced labour

Extrajudicial killings

Secret Police

The number of those that disappeared were so high,the Spanish economy completely stagnated because there simply was'nt the manpower to effectively run an economy.It was'nt until the US under Eisenhower finacially assisted the Fascist dictator.

Edited August 27, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Shady]

we have the exact same thing that hapens in almost all Fascist states...

Concentration camps

Show trials

Mass executions

Forced labour

Extrajudicial killings

Secret Police

You're obsessed with this whole fascist thing. You can take any communist dictator, or any fascist dictator, and you'll find the same kinds of things, camps, show trials, executions, secret police, etc.

[Jack Weber]

Your guess is as good as mine. I think it was an attempt to show that we're just as bad as Al Qaeda.

Well...No one can ever accuse you of being a deep thinker,Professor Kitzel...

The main reason is that you made an idiotic claim I,and everyone else,have yet to see you back up.

You could have simply said that you were'nt sure about these things,but...Because you're immature,arrogant,and,an ideologue and cannot admit you don't have a very good grasp of history,you continued down this road.

And now you've had kimmy halfheartedly,and alot more politely,try to make your points for you because you were entirely intellectually ill equipped to do so.This is why you have to try to obfuscate,make wildly innaccurate statements about posters supporting Saddam...It's simply because you cannot admit you don't know what you're talking about AND you seem to revel in the O'Reilly,Hannity,Limbaugh method of bully debating and then trying to change the subject when you begin to fall behind...

I have no sympathy for the likes of you at all,and I don't mean conservatives because I have debated conservatives here regularily and sometimes agreed with them(please,spare calling me a leftist because I'll have to defy you to prove it and we'll have to go through your charade of cluelessness again.)...It's simply because you don't have anything to offer other than Fox news ideological talking points and a poor grasp of history...Besides the fact that I also think you'd be doing this country a huge service and moving to the place you clearly would rather be living in...

I truly enjoy watching you get hoisted on your cluelessly arrogant,immature,ideological driven petard because you deserve every inch of it...And then try to wriggle your way of the hook...

I'll bet I speak for more than just myself on that,as well...

[Jack Weber]

You're obsessed with this whole fascist thing. You can take any communist dictator, or any fascist dictator, and you'll find the same kinds of things, camps, show trials, executions, secret police, etc.

Yuppers..

Of course those Pinko's were'nt backed up by the US State department....And that's what we've been discussing...

[bloodyminded]

I'm not sure, I'd have to study it a bit more. But I'm still trying to figure out what that has to do with Islamic terrorism in today's world. Or was that your attempt at more moral equivalence?

YOU said that the United States did not support anyone as brutal as Saddam Hussein.

So I corrected you.

Great post Dog. And you nailed it. It's always more fun for them to blame us. Besides, bloody already admitted he holds those brown people to a lower standard.

Nice race-baiting, Mr. Politically correct; but as I already informed you (and to which you were unable to respond), my remark had precisely zero to do with race. I made an uncontroversial assertion that we should be more concerned with the high crimes of OUR governments than with those of official enemies.

Your Jesus made the same point about motes and beams, as perhaps you've heard. It's the same principle.

Edited August 27, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

Unfortunately for you, not even per capita supports your assertion. Try again.

Suharto.

You can't say you missed this, because you already alluded to it while admitting your ignorance about the matter.

[bloodyminded]

I think the Saddam card probably trumps all of those. I'd have to research some of them a little more, but I think that on sheer death toll, Saddam probably wins.

Not sure why we have to just pick fascists, though. Pol Pot remains to me the most disgusting. Would loved to have had the chance to fist-fight that guy.

Wait, what has this got to do with anything?

-k

It has to do with Shady's wild-eyed assertion that the United States would never be allied with someone as brutal as Saddam Hussein.

Leaving aside the fact the one-time alliance with...Saddam Hussein...rather undermines his preposterous argument, I suggested General Suharto as a worthy Saddam-level villain.

[bloodyminded]

In the case of Suharto, I believe that a large portion of the carnage was actually at the hands of militias that were not directly under his control (albeit, tolerated by his army... much like the jan jaweed militias in Darfur.)

The militias were not "tolerated"...they were part of the program of Western-backed State terrorism against East Timor.

But actually, Suharto is also responsible for the murder of (conservatively) 500 000 people--possibly a million--in the "Communist purge" in Indonesia itself in the mid-sixties.

So the numbers of victims are high enough to qualify, I would think.

It's not widely known simply because he was a client, and because we were directly and intentionally complicit in the East Timor slaughters.

Edited August 27, 2010 by bloodyminded

[M.Dancer]

Or like the ones who supply the gas to Saddam, then fly around in their jets taking pictures of the whole thing, and doing nothing about it.

Who? The french and Germans? I don't believe they took pictures...I would like to see these french and german air pictures...

[M.Dancer]

I don't know...

Gassing people is certainly hideous,but sadly,it's simply a quicker way to get the body count up...

Franco had anyone involved in the Republican side of the Spanish Civil War executed in show trials or put in concentration camps and then mass murdered..One of the main reasons for Spains economic woes in through the '40's and the '50's was because Franco had much of the male population that would'nt side with him essentially exterminated...

At least 50,000 people were executed during the civil war.[20][32][33] Franco's victory was followed by thousands of summary executions (from 15,000 to 25,000 people[34])

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Franco#The_end_of_the_Civil_War

I think a bigger reason for the economic woes were the facist economic policies that wee finally shelved 20 years after Franco won the civil war.

His death toll is minor compared to Saddam's

[Shady]

It has to do with Shady's wild-eyed assertion that the United States would never be allied with someone as brutal as Saddam Hussein.

That's a complete fabrication. I never once said that. Please stop lying about me or I'm going to have to ask the moderator of the forum to talk to you.

[punked]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Franco#The_end_of_the_Civil_War

I think a bigger reason for the economic woes were the facist economic policies that wee finally shelved 20 years after Franco won the civil war.

His death toll is minor compared to Saddam's

But if you count the executions that happened before and during the war on unarmed men the death toll jumps to 350,000-400,000 MORE then Saddam.

[ToadBrother]

That's a complete fabrication. I never once said that. Please stop lying about me or I'm going to have to ask the moderator of the forum to talk to you.

And can others do the same to you. Your out-of-context quoting is pretty damned awful. The irony of someone as dishonest as you running to the moderator going "Daddy daddy! They said mean things about me!" is pretty rich.

[GostHacked]

And can others do the same to you. Your out-of-context quoting is pretty damned awful. The irony of someone as dishonest as you running to the moderator going "Daddy daddy! They said mean things about me!" is pretty rich.

Here here. Also he should get a talking to for calling people idiots and such. I am sure he has violated a few rules on the forums. I had violated rules a few times myself, I got a talking to .. and that is all cleared up now. It would be quite easy to stoop to Shady's level, way too easy. I am finding it hard to restrain myself and let him know exactly what I think, but I would not be allowed to come back here anymore.

[Shady]

And can others do the same to you. Your out-of-context quoting is pretty damned awful.

What out of context quoting?

[GostHacked]

What out of context quoting?

Toadbrother..... how about facetiousness?????

[Jack Weber]

Well...No one can ever accuse you of being a deep thinker,Professor Kitzel...

The main reason is that you made an idiotic claim I,and everyone else,have yet to see you back up.

You could have simply said that you were'nt sure about these things,but...Because you're immature,arrogant,and,an ideologue and cannot admit you don't have a very good grasp of history,you continued down this road.

And now you've had kimmy halfheartedly,and alot more politely,try to make your points for you because you were entirely intellectually ill equipped to do so.This is why you have to try to obfuscate,make wildly innaccurate statements about posters supporting Saddam...It's simply because you cannot admit you don't know what you're talking about AND you seem to revel in the O'Reilly,Hannity,Limbaugh method of bully debating and then trying to change the subject when you begin to fall behind...

I have no sympathy for the likes of you at all,and I don't mean conservatives because I have debated conservatives here regularily and sometimes agreed with them(please,spare calling me a leftist because I'll have to defy you to prove it and we'll have to go through your charade of cluelessness again.)...It's simply because you don't have anything to offer other than Fox news ideological talking points and a poor grasp of history...Besides the fact that I also think you'd be doing this country a huge service and moving to the place you clearly would rather be living in...

I truly enjoy watching you get hoisted on your cluelessly arrogant,immature,ideological driven petard because you deserve every inch of it...And then try to wriggle your way of the hook...

I'll bet I speak for more than just myself on that,as well...

Sign the petition here,guys and girls...

[Jack Weber]

But if you count the executions that happened before and during the war on unarmed men the death toll jumps to 350,000-400,000 MORE then Saddam.

That's the part of the Franco body count equation I was alluding to...

[Shady]

That's the part of the Franco body count equation I was alluding to...

Of couse it was.

Just like the per captia thing right. You just never mentioned either of them until somebody else did. Stop trying to piggyback on other people's comments.