The history of the Ba’athist Party and its Pan-Arab movement should be known to anyone who wishes to have a half-way intelligent opinion on Iraq.

Anyways, anyone here really concerned about the fate of LGBT Iraqis?

I’m really trying hard to discern what point you were trying to make in that post, but got completely lost in finding relevancy to Bruce’s post or anyone’s –anybody’s– comments. What the Hell is a quasi-Marxist secularist? (Hell, are there even Marxists left in the world outside of university faculty lounges???)

Can you try that again, Edward TJ? I may need the coloring book version, so go slow (thanks).

If you look at my comments a little more closely, you would discover that neither of them were directed to your post. Both were directed to other comments, and they identified the comments to which they were directed.

I am sorry, but as an American that grew up in the Muslim Middle East and I really sick and tired of this type of pro-Marxist propaganda being shouted out by ‘conservatives.’

Unless you are pro-Communist, being criticial of the Bush Administration’s bumbling of the Iraqi War does not mean that you are “un-American”, or that you love Saddam.

The reality is that the United States government has faciliated an Islamic fundamentalists from taking control of the government from quasi-Marxist secularists. This is largely why conservatives refuse to talk about gay rights in Iraq when they get all stiffy over the administration talking about ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ and fighting ‘terrorists.’

I think I may need to refer you to the dictionary. See “satire.”

Maybe that will help you understand my postings a bit more from now on.

First, I’m talking about a bunch of different possibilities and saying we really don’t have enough info to advance any one theory.

Exactly. It’s perfectly reasonable to assume Saddam’s supporters have infiltrated the Ministry of Interior assumably by changing their name from Omar to Achmed, and showed up with proper credentials to wisk the lawyer away and kill him.

Though I must say I have seen sharper bowling balls on the rack.

Remind me again. If there is a hint that Saddam or his henchmen were behind the assassination of Saddam’s defense lawyer, just how easy would it be for Saddam to engage another defense lawyer? The likelihood is that Saddam will be held in jail until he is either convicted (in which case he would remain in jail) or acquitted (in which case he would presumably be released). The assassination of his lawyer is unlikely to speed his acquittal and release–if he is acquitted . So remind me again, what benefit would Saddam get from having his lawyer assassinated? At the rate things were going, Saddam might have died of old age before the trial comes to a conclusion irrespective of his lawyer’s assassination.

Second, for the recrd, a political and judicial climate in which lawyers are being assassinated is far more disruptive to the judicial process…

That may be, but what evidence do you have that the assassination of Saddam’s lawyer was part of a pattern or practice? Any more than murders of people in other professions. You might have a point if you were discussing assassination of government ministers or their deputies, or their relatives, but I haven’t seen many reports of assassinations of lawyers because they were lawyers. Regardless of whether they were Saddam’s lawyers.

You might have a better point if the judge were to have been assassinated. Apparently, he is still alive and breathing.

First, I’m talking about a bunch of different possibilities and saying we really don’t have enough info to advance any one theory.

Second, for the recrd, a political and judicial climate in which lawyers are being assassinated is far more disruptive to the judicial process, and far more likely to win strong international sympathy for Saddam (as you should know intimately, on both counts) than for Saddam to merely dismiss counsel.

Every now and then I check in with one of your comments to discover if you’ve gotten remotely worth reading or responding to… and practically every time, you have not. Bye again, for awhile.

Unless things are substantially different in Iraq than in the US, all that Hussein would have had to do was discharge his defense counsel. He wouldn’t have to have had him killed.

You’re digging a bit too much.

Of course, according to rightiswrong’s leftist theories, that should never have happened — because said person was representing the kind, benevolent, kite-flying monarch loved by all Iraqis.

Each day that passes, I’m convinced that the longer Saddam lives, the more deaths his supporters and allies cause in Iraq. He needs to be tried efficiently, properly, then publicly killed in whatever fashion suits the Iraqi govt and his body cremated & disposed –no grave for the family or supporters to mourn and honor.

The Iraqi govt needs to finish these public trials and put Saddam’s reign of terror behind the Iraqi people. The sooner, the better.

That has got to be the surreal anti-American statement of the year! ROTFLMAO

But what I came here to say: Bruce, are you sure about the motive for the killing? Saddam killed so many of his own people, it’s quite possible that a few of them just can’t wait for the new Iraqi justice system to work, and hit the closest they could get to Saddam.

Another possibility (given Saddam’s track record) is that Saddam himself is trying to delay the outcome of his trial, or create a basis for appeal. Lots of actors/motives are still possible from the little info I’ve seen.

US out of iraq NOW. To continue this farce is completely un-american. We should be ashamed of this administration, who LIED us into this immoral and illegal war.