• STOP USING PAYPAL FRIENDS & FAMILY
    Please, help us prevent you getting ripped off because someone got their account compromised by reusing their email & password. Read the new best practices for using the Exchange FAQ page.

20 Worst Dictators of 2006

Joined
Mar 26, 2002
Messages
1,861
http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2006/edition_01-22-2006/Dictators

We need more nooses! I'll buy some strong rope!

My sister was Iran during the '70s and caught cholera. The doctors would not tell her what she had, though they treated her, because the Shah said there was no cholera in his country and the doctors there would have faced charges of treason if they had openly disgnosed this disease.

All they would tell her was, "You will be ok. Do not worry." She was three months pregnant.

She managed to get to Italy where they finished the treatment. She recovered.

Small stuff, but an indication of how things were over there.

Not a lot to do with this link, but still an example of their power. There is a middle east saying, "If the king at noon says it is night, behold the moon."
 
i know hangings are fun for the whole family and all, but this is the him imp forum after all. chop, i say. save money on rope and get some exercise. then retreat to montana.
 
....which kukri is best for removing head from trunk of evil man?



munk
 
[soft Carpenter's piano music]

I hope the only reason they buried Saddam was to get video intel on the DuMasses that go and visit him in his new Tikrit digs.

Cats bury something like that in the sand, too. For the same reason.


Mike :thumbdn:
 
I thought his sons were the "swingers":D
His necktie was very becoming in the photo...
 
Reminds me of the middle eastern practice of qasas, where a rape victim cuts the throat and sometimes decapitates the convicted with a small knife. Icky stuff!

While I consider rape a heinous crime, I don't see the death penalty that so many societies mandate. Hmmm maybe it is a "mandate?" Sorry about that.

Dayaks of Borneo had the cuckolded spouse cut the ears off the offending participants. Many others do condem the offending parties to horrible deaths.

I think that is what I would like to see with dictators like in the OP link. A slow and awful death. Hanging is too good for them. They did not consider "humane" death when they killed their victims. It should not be considered for them. The execution should also be televised, particularly to prisoners to let them know that a slow, horrible and very painful death would await them for capital offences.

I am against making it a "glorius death." Make it ugly, like they treated their victims. I can only imagine whta it must have been like for their victims that the last thing they saw was Saddam's ugly mug.

A small, but effective example. My father was a Lieutenant Commander ijn the Navy. One of his duties was to put people in jail, or the brig. Originally they got bread and water. They bragged about it. So Dad put them on baby food. Big tough guy want to brag about being in the brig on baby food? Nopers.

In the Batak culture -- 1800s Summatra and earlier, they ate parts of the condemmed while the person was still alive. The victim's families got first choice. Cut off something, lightly cook it and eat it. Gross? Yeah? Inhuman? Well, consider the crime. Effective? Hell yes!

I live in a suburb of Atlanta that has probably THE most effective police force around.

Number one, if a person runs from them, they put him in the hospital. People don't run from them. Also they put someone in the back seat of the police car, hands cuffed behind him. That person gives them a hard time? The driver yells "DOG!" and hits the brakes hard. There is an extruded wire cage between the officers and the perp. Hit the barkes and the perp goes face first into the wire. They call it "waffle face."

Number two, prisoners wear clown suits. Huge black and white stripes with day-glo orange hats. No "pride" there!

Number three, the jails are clean, but no amenities. No cable TV. No books or even magazines. Just a clean, boring cell.
 
I'm kind of wobbly on this issue. It is perfectly natural to want the perp to suffer in proportion to his evildoing, and it's hard to deny the value of a graphic object lesson. Still, I dislike the idea of using the apparatus of the State to gratify human passions, regardless of motives. It BEGS for abuse, and usually gets it. I'd druther executions be done in camera, simple bullet to the head, toss the body on the truck with the rest of the garbage. Just eliminate the noxious person fast-simple-cheap, leave the emotifying to the victims' families and the vengeance to God. There are strong arguments to be made for doing otherwise, I know, but that's my humble notion.
 
Looks like a good list for assasination. Why doesn't the govt make use of those maffia guys they put in the witness protection program????
 
While I consider rape a heinous crime, I don't see the death penalty that so many societies mandate. Hmmm maybe it is a "mandate?" Sorry about that.

Dayaks of Borneo had the cuckolded spouse cut the ears off the offending participants. Many others do condem the offending parties to horrible deaths.

I think that is what I would like to see with dictators like in the OP link. A slow and awful death. Hanging is too good for them. They did not consider "humane" death when they killed their victims. It should not be considered for them. The execution should also be televised, particularly to prisoners to let them know that a slow, horrible and very painful death would await them for capital offences.

The cliché about "sinking to their level" comes to mind. If someone who has committed heinous war crimes, I won't miss them or try to stop their execution. Then again, I don't personally have any desire to inflict any additional suffering on them. Then again, if I was a survivor of some of these regimes, I might feel differently.

Qubehead's statement above seems well-put to me.
 
The cliché about "sinking to their level" comes to mind. If someone who has committed heinous war crimes, I won't miss them or try to stop their execution. Then again, I don't personally have any desire to inflict any additional suffering on them. Then again, if I was a survivor of some of these regimes, I might feel differently.

Qubehead's statement above seems well-put to me.


I understand your viewpoint. However my point was first that I see terrorists decapitating helpless victims that have committed no crimes deserving of this treatment, yet they same people go crazy if we humiliate them. I can understand regional and cultural differences, but even so, their cowardly actions go far against any moral decency and there should be equal consequences for them.

It appears that their actions are sanctioned by their religion and government. So is it "sinking to their level" to do the same to them? Or is it what they understand? Their frame of reference. Let them know the consequences will be appropriate to their actions.

A few years ago I had a friend Mitch Werbel who was for want of a better word, a mercenary, here in Atlanta. Mitch had a company called Marietta Arms Corporation. They made neat little SMGs called MAC - 10 in .45 cal; MAC - 11 in 9mm. You may have heard of them. In fact Mitch reminded me of his weapons -- little and ugly, but very effective.

Mitch and some of his boys were given the assignment of guarding an Atlanta Coca Cola executive who was planning to tour South America. Word was sent from an extremist group that they planned to kidnap and ransom that executive.

Mitch responded that IF they succeeded, he would be sure that they did not receive a dime. But he promised also: "I will find you and I will kill you. I will kill your families, your neighbors, your children, your cats and your dogs. I will burn your village to the ground. It will be as though you never existed."

I guess that what he said could be an "Urban Rumor" however there were absolutely no incidents.

As I said, that could be an Urban Rumor, but I did know Mitch -- and some of his "boys" --- and give some credence to the possibility it was true.

I do have a personal example. I lived in a very good neighborhood in downtown Atlanta. One day when I was doing some yard work a homeless guy came by and begged me for some money. I gave him some in return for him raking leaves.

Big mistake.

A few days later he came back for more money. I told him I had no work. He was insistant, but finally left. When I drove off, he came back and rang the doorbell insisting to my wife that I 'owed him money' and he was not leaving until I paid him. He was very passive-agressive. This scared her.

I came back and he was gone. I called the police and made a report.

He had an uncanny sense of knowing when to appear and when to leave.

One day I came home and he was sitting on my porch, cap pulled down over his eyes. I told him to leave. He refused. I sat down beside him and told him I wanted him gone. He mumbled something.

He knew that if I called the police, he would be gone before they got there. He thought he would wear me down. I knew I had to "sink to his level" in order to really communicate.

So I told him that I had a gun and if he did not leave, I would kill him. That the police would find him dead in my driveway with a knife in his hand. "I ain't got no knife!"

"You will have by the time they get here. And you know something else? They will put my picture in the paper for being a hero because I live here. I pay taxes. I own this house. The police respect me and you are scum. Leave and don't come back. I won't warn you again." All this said in the same low passive agressive tone he used.

I believe in effective communication. I never saw him again.

I like Jack Bauer.

I have no problem "sinking to their level" if it is effective in curbing that stuff. Would I have shot him? I don't think so, but he did and that was enough.

I love Jack Bauer, his focus, his methods, he gets the job done.
 
I understand your viewpoint. However my point was first that I see terrorists decapitating helpless victims that have committed no crimes deserving of this treatment, yet they same people go crazy if we humiliate them.

I'm not too sure that those people being "humiliated" are the same ones who are doing the decapitation. Theory (and history) states that if you invade a country, you should try to win over the minds of the local populace. Scooping folks off the streets and "humiliating" them, tends to piss off those who are innocent.
 
I have no problem "sinking to their level" if it is effective in curbing that stuff. Would I have shot him? I don't think so, but he did and that was enough.

I'd consider "unorthodox methods" under certain circumstances. I shudder to think what circumstances they might be!

Wanting ar criminals dead is one thing... deciding upon some bizarre torture or mutilation seems more concernsed with vengeance than simply preventing that person from offending again. Again, if *I* survived some atrocity, I could think of some torments I'd like to inflict upon them. But if they sentence the Nazis to hang at Nuremburg, why would I think Saddam deserves worse?

Then again, Saddam DID pass a law stating French Canadians couldn't have their wine... hmmm.... (reconsiders stance)
 
It wasn't precisely the 'sinking to their level' thing I had in mind when I made my earlier statement. I don't consider 'their' level sink-to-able short of sawing off innocent heads myself. Torturing for information? No problem! If it meant saving lives, I'd quiz the perps with a blowtorch unblinkingly. The caveat I meant to put across was this: it is a very very bad move to let oneself get emotionally involved in the violences needed to maintain civilization. The higher up one is in the official heirarchy, the larger the effects (and side-effects) of one's actions, the more scupulously rigid must be one's professional detachment. To do otherwise is to turn onto the path taken by Torquemada and Stalin. C.S. Lewis addresses this issue in his "Reply to J.S. Haldane", an essay in a collection titled 'Of Other Worlds'.
 
It wasn't precisely the 'sinking to their level' thing I had in mind when I made my earlier statement. I don't consider 'their' level sink-to-able short of sawing off innocent heads myself. Torturing for information? No problem! If it meant saving lives, I'd quiz the perps with a blowtorch unblinkingly. The caveat I meant to put across was this: it is a very very bad move to let oneself get emotionally involved in the violences needed to maintain civilization. The higher up one is in the official heirarchy, the larger the effects (and side-effects) of one's actions, the more scupulously rigid must be one's professional detachment. To do otherwise is to turn onto the path taken by Torquemada and Stalin. C.S. Lewis addresses this issue in his "Reply to J.S. Haldane", an essay in a collection titled 'Of Other Worlds'.

I will look up "Reply to J.S. Haldane." I love Clive Staples (Jack) Lewis!

But my guy on the porch? I doubt that I would have shot him. He did not pose that great a menace. But I did talk with the cops later and they suggested a basball bat. They also suggested that I take a picture of him and they would get a "John Doe" warrant and put him away for a while. With the idiotically good treatment we offer in some of our jalis, this might be a benefit for the average street guy. I like the baseball bat myself.

All I wanted was for him to change his behavior toward me and other 'citizens.' My 'conversation' with him was merely trying to get into his frame of reference. Convince him I was willing to treat him with extreme measures.

I think that we are all on the same page here. It is not to torture for amusement. Torquemada, Stalin, Saddam certainly fall in that category.

But I vote for a slow painful death for them, not because I like to see another human being hurt, I don't, but as a televised example to others that this awful fate awaits people who do these terrible things to other human beings. Saddam was not a martyr, he was a monster and desreved a monster's death.

As far as actually resorting to extreme measures, I mentioned Jack Bauer of the marvelous series "24."

Jack Bauer had captured a terrorist who knew the location of some weapon, I forget which episode, but the weapon (Nuclear bomb or bioloigical bomb) was planted in Los Angeles and set to detonate soon, killing 10 million people.

The terrorist was not talking. Jack hooked up a video feed from the guy's home town in the middle east, showing him that Jack had the guy's family and was willing to kill them one at a time, while the guy watched, unless he talked.

Extreme? Sure! But effective. Waste a few innocents or let 10 million, also innocent, die? Not a hard choice to make. Glad that I did not have to make that choice, but I would probably have done the same as Jack.

It seemed obvious that even Jack did not like the idea, but he was out of options. He was incredibly focussed. "Tell me where the bomb is or your son dies NOW!"

I remember at the end of one of these 24 hour periods where Jack had to make a LOT of very hard choices --- right before the closing credits --- Jack went out to his car, completely alone, put his head down and sobbed.

Guys, we live in a tough world in some places. A world I am very happy to NOT be a direct part of --- but I appreciate AND support the people who do make these decisions and carry them out effectively, whether it is the Jack Bauers, our armed forces or just the beat cop.
 
Bill Marsh;

I think your posts have really added much to this discussion. They are truly thought provoking in a healthy exchange. I know many forumites choose not to participate in political or psychological threads that can be intense, but it is pages with decent posts like these that keep me believing we can make bridges in HI forum. Risky? Yes. Beyond the ability of most internet forums? You bet.


munk
 
Back
Top