Screenshots

The credibility of TDM's expression of horror over Saddam's hanging has o be measured aginst his equally harsh epressions in his past responses to Saddam's injustices, genocide, and other his inhumane rule. Jeff, maybe, since you are good at it, you can list against each of Saddam's brutality of his past, Mahathir's expressions of rebuke and horror.

Bah. Saddam was a tyrant and to say "if in fact he was guilty of any crime" is a bit too much. I am opposed to the death penalty in any case but TDM is not presenting anything beyond mere populist sentiments.

It's too shallow to say "why don't we punish Bush and Blair too?"

A simple impartial and rational examination will reveal better reasoning to condemn the execution; reasoning that is at a higher level than rhetorical commentary. That statement by TDM could easily have come out of a Ahmedinejad.

And condemning the ICC does no good. One has to understand the absolute impact of institutions like that; which is positive, similar to how one has to understand the absolute impact of Saddam's rule.

It's one thing to look at Saddam's crimes IN RELATION to Bush's crimes and say whatever, but Saddam was hanged (wrongly nonetheless) for the ABSOLUTE nature of his crimes.

TDM is one to speak of human rights... joke..

One more thing. Can we have Mahathir's expression of horror when ever the fanatics slit a westerner's throat "halal style" while reciting Islamic prayers and shouting Allah u Akhbar.

One more thing. Can we have Mahathir's expression of horror when ever the fanatics slit a westerner's throat "halal style" while reciting Islamic prayers and shouting Allah u Akhbar.

Exactly.
By his own 'relativist' logic TDM would be open to criticism for not condemning a truly more barbaric act.

Dont get caught up in mere rhetoric. It's ugly.

It all started since 911. Before that the world is more peaceful. Now almost everything is out of control. The real culprit still hiding himself and still no way to be found. Why could not be found? Hanging Saddam won't help to end the conflict. Osama should come out himself to end all this mess. Whatever problem he has with America, he has to settle it with Bush. Don't affect innocent people and nations.

Thats complete crap, it's clear Saddam was a genocidal maniac at certain points in his life.

Questioning that's he's guilty of anything is a step too far.

Sometimes i always wonder, why must the rest of the world be always sensitive to islam. If it was wrong to hang saddam on such a holy day, was it not wrong that dozens of people died on that day due to "islamic" bombings ? Why dont the muslims condemm such acts before asking the rest of the world to be sensitive. Wasn't it a few days ago that a suicide bomber blew himself up in a mosque in afghanistan ? before muslims ask others to respect them, i suggest muslims must first respect themselves, live in peace with themselves first before calling others to respect them. Please dont comment and say that because bush invaded irag, that's why muslims are killing each other like flies. it only shows the world that muslims are brutes that need a dicatatot to rule over them and are incapable to living with themselves or others in peace. I will be more impressed if i see muslims condemming such hostilities and making the effort to go to irag to preach peace. Rather than send a peace keeping force to lebanon etc for wayang

Observer, I do not know where 'halal-style' throat slitting fit into these. Are you trying to implicate that all these fiasco in Iraq begins with Muslim fanaticism? Are you saying the fact that the act of killing hundreds of thousands of innocent guys and gals out there can easily be backtracked to terrorism committed by small members of the Muslim community? I'm not a TDM supporter but he did talk a lot about Muslim fanaticism as well.

It is fair for a usual critique of western leaders to take this opportunity to lambaste this popular war-on-terror fallacies perpetuated by Bush and Blair, and to certain extent, the Zionist haram state of Israel.

Saddam committed most of his crimes when he was an ally of those who now occupy his country!

He's a monster, but this portrayal of act of lynching is too much of a hypocrisy to bear...

And the mysterious story that shrouds behind the infiltration of camera phone into the execution room may be part of conspiracy to provoke reaction from overzealous quarters to further disintegrate the unity of Iraq and the entire Arab nations, thus justifying the Allies' war for secure access to the black gold.

guys,

the issue here is whether this sadistic act broadcasted to the whole world is a travesty of justice since the condemnation of the man to the death penalty is not a surprise from the very beginning ...

After the invasion has there really being democracy, freedom and justice for the Iraqians ?

I can only dread from reading in the news every day as to how many has succumbed to violence in the Iraqi regime.

To put TDM's statement in the briefest context;
By logic, if Saddam is equally guilty of his atrocities during his reign, what about countless of civilians/non-civilians whom have died as well due to the war on terror ?

What TDM is saying is that the number of people who have been injured or died as a consequence of the war against terror is even more higher.

If Saddam is equally guilty, why don't the same kangaroo court finds Bush/Blair to be equally in contemptuous as well ?

TDM has also previously condemned against the alleged terrorism committed in the name of Islam as per zk9's statement.

So what is your take on Bush/Blair ? The death toll is still counting as of now not only in Iraq / Afganistan but also over the world ...

StanSukhwat,

Firstly you need to get into your head that Irag is not a country.

Then you need to be aware that for better or for worse we are structurally defined by our religion and ethnicity, especially for Muslims. To be sure, it is healthy to step out of the socially constructed boxes like 'Arab', 'Malay', 'White' 'Black'. However you need to understand that society's macro and micro institutions are all intertwined with these boxes; not to mention the almost invariable need to identify oneself with a group.

As such we have every right to demand respect from people who are not Muslim to respect our sensitivities, as you have the right to demand respect for your sensitivities from me.

To call Muslims brutes is plain disrespectful, and I apologise in advance Jeff; but it is also very stupid. You committed the cardinal sin of generalising something under the label of a faith, when the issue has an entirely seperate being. In fighting occurs across space and time; and it has little to do with whether one is Muslim, Christian, or anything else.

What you said is akin to saying in Malaysia that all Indonesians are backward, criminals and predisposed to causing trouble. Do you see how ignorant, arrogant, disrespectful it sounds?

Perhaps you are disillusioned with how the Malaysia-Islam issue keeps getting caught up in the news. Thats an entirely different issue and whatever your opinion is on that, you should always refrain from making such broad generalisations about what a Muslim is.

Because I make no apologies for demanding that respect and restraint.

Post Saddam's hanging, the question still hovering about is whether there will be any true end towards the illusive goal of freedom, democracy and liberty for Iraq as propounded by Bush when he decided to take a jab at it ...

I don't think the above three concepts have ever been truer than before even after this so-called liberation of Iraq by the US's anti-terrorist effort.

The hatred of this man plus Saddam's hanging for the genocidal crime committed during his reign has over-shadowed the equally evils committed by the decisions of the President of the USA as well as the PM of Britain.

Dear StanSukhwant
"islamic" bombings =
uhm there's nothing Islamic about killing innocent people.

Well I dont like it when you generalize all Muslims to be insensitive.

Compared to the assumed 'Muslim insensitivity', the puppet masters in the US and other allies are highly insensitive to justify war casualties with democracy-building's collateral damage, to implicate Ahmadinejad of being racist when many of US leaders spoke bad things about our Prophet (pbuh) without any note of apology, and to fail to acknowledge Palestinian's right to democracy (to choose who should rule them (read:HAMAS) ) when Israel's masquerading army of terror has been given green light to terrorize others without the consensus of the world community simply by the Allies' veto powers in the UN.

Saddam is indeed guilty of crime.

However, how he finally ended up in the noose was started by an illegal invasion of Iraq by US and UK forces. The West is quick to be silent about the legitimacy of this war. Isn't it a crime to humanity to have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civillians let alone invade a sovereign country? Saddam was never involved in 9/11.

The current Iraqi government is made up of his enemies. America conveniently throw Saddam to his enemies to decide on his fate. Hence the government is not objective enough to provide fair trial or pass a fair sentence. Saddam was tried for killing 148 people. Why not wait until all the cases are heard? So many more people have died as a result of American invasion and the manner its puppet government is managing Iraq. History will prove that the current government is equally as brutal as the past.

The West has no right to force upon it's own brand of democracy on any countries in this world, be it China, Cuba or Malaysia.

One who understands the situation in Iraq will know that Iraq is not ready for this sort of democracy. Saddam is wrong with his brutal ways, but to certain extent iron fist may be required to provide peace to the majority of the population.

Furthermore, it's childish to say that America has no influence over the hanging of Saddam. Americans are all over the place from installing the current Iraqi government to causing civil war in Iraq. Which is worse? Iraq rule under Saddam or the current mess?

650,000 lives have been sacrificed all because of this illegal invasion. The numbers are still rising. Does it bring more hope to Iraq? Only in American's dream.

The war on Iraq and Saddam's hanging have proven that America can do whatever it wants on anyone who is against it, including Saddam who used to be its ally in staging war against American's enemies. There is no true justice in this world. Religion is only used when it is convenient and forgotten and abused when one's personal intention is not in line.

Bush and Blair are equally evil, and it's ok to question why they shouldn't be held accountable for the deaths and sufferings they have caused.

But thats where it ends.

Because

1) there is a respectful argument to say that they are spreading peace. Obviously I (and I believe most everyone else here as well) don't buy that argument, but it is an established argument nonetheless.

2)It is politically unviable to convict Bush and Blair of war crimes. Think about it, dream it. But we shouldnt base our perspectives on something that we know can never happen. I'd rather dream of my Newcastle United winning the EPL.

3)Questioning the guilt of Bush and Blair doesnt take away the guilt of Saddam. Just because he killed people when he was an ally of the West doesnt render him innocent.
During WW2 and afterwards, Stalin was an evil man. But does that mean that had Hitler been caught he should not have been convicted?

As I stated earlier, the condemnation of the execution should take a better, more informed, shape.
We should bring up facts about the the politicised nature of the trial, the fact that the final judge was clearly partial, and a whole lot of other issues raised by respected bodies that are Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

We should not, I believe, use the schoolboy argument "But he hit me first!"

Read this http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=5096&edition=2&ttl=20070101110425&#paginator

Majority of British are ashamed of what has happened, as a country that is against capital punishment.

Most do not think US and UK are right to invade Iraq in the first place.

Coming from the author who oversaw a 22-year regime of authoritarain rule in Negaraku as well as the incarceration of his deputy during his premiership, Dr Mahathir should disqualify himself as having a conscientious locus standi to say: "The entire trial process was a mockery of justice, no less a Kangaroo Court."

Anwar Ibrahim was jailed for six unreclamable years, could have "died" from the former IGP's black-eye wallop, had his charges "amended" not once, but twice in the times of committing the alleged charges of sodomy -- not akin to kangaroo?
Is someone suffering amnesia, or is it not another case of "seeing the speck in thy neighbour's eye but not the PLANK in one's own"?

I weep for Malaysia, but the rivers are running dry. I wonder when Petronas oil tanks too?
Can I be the next Pet adviser, Mr Prime Minister? I promise I won't touch the till except in the still/steal/steel of the (k)night!:(

It is true, Saddam was tried and convicted in a court whose neutrality is questionable.

Nevertheless, no one can even pretend to deny he was guilty as sin. His genoicidal acts as well as use of poison gas is well documented.

Whereas, TDM, Anwar was actually innocent. Chew on that, folks.

PS: Find it hilarious that while self-righteous (and self-serving) individuals safely ensconced in comfortable homes the world over beat their chests in pretend grief at Saddam's death, most of Iraq is celebrating his passing.

Vedderain, respect is earned, never commanded. You cant force others to respect you before you respect them. Irag , Afghanistan happened because of 9/11. Before that, the west was happy to go it's own way. If osama had not sent his zealots over, irag & afghanistan would not have been invaded. The world knows it was wrong for the americans to attack irag. We all know that irag was a mistake but why? . Was it wrong to remove a dictator or it was a mistake because the world has realize that there is no such thing as muslims living in peace with each other ? .I am always surprised when comments are made about how wrong it was to remove a dicatator that was killing it's own people but silence when over 200,000 muslims have been killed by arab janjiwed in darfur and there is a deafening silence in the arab, muslim world. No one have the balls to take action but when actions do get taken by the west, there is such a hue & cry in the islamic world of how unfair such an action is. It is also true that saddam was at one time an ally of the U.S. So what ? Today Saudi arabia is an ally of the US. if today or tommorow, it decides to attack it's neighbours with it's F-15, will it then be U.S fault?. Iran is doing all it can to develop a nuclear bomb, quietly most muslims support iran . What if, a mad mullah begins acting jus like saddam and decides to do the unthinkable. Whose fault then ?, The U.N or the US for not stopping ? Blaming others all the time and refusing to accept personal responsibility will always be the downfall of a society, individual or a nation.

I am coming out in defence of StanSukhwant.

Firstly, I would like to state that I was saddened by the miscarriage of justice in Saddam's trial; the hasty execution was a most undignified coup de grace. (Anyone else recognized one or two similarities to the Anwar trial?) The question of Saddam’s innocence aside, he conducted himself with pride, and I dare say, honour, in his final minutes.

Having said that, I believe that Stan's statements resonates with the sentiments shared by the non-Muslim world. At the risk of being branded insensitive, I believe that there could be a bit of a perception of double-standards. Can we objectively state that the furore raised by Muslims when there is perceived injustice against the Muslims (propagated by non-Muslims), is as great as that of Muslims condemning terrorists’ attacks which happen to be sponsored and/or undertaken by other fellow Muslims?

Let’s call a spade a spade.

This viewpoint is not only prevalent vis-a-vis Iraq, but almost everywhere. I realize this is may sidetrack the thread, but I believe the following is a useful illustration of Stan’s context.

Southern Thailand. When Buddhist-Thai soldiers kill Muslim-Thais, there is a huge uproar. Money is dolled out to the victims’ families, alleged militia leaders are granted asylum in Malaysia. When the inverse happens, i.e. Buddhist-Thais are killed by Muslim-Thai terrorists, there is a strange silence permeating the atmosphere, only punctuated by comments that “it will take time” by esteemed leaders like the chief architect of Islam Hadhari.

Happy New Year everyone, and may we approach issues with a little more logos and ethos.

...It is also true that saddam was at one time an ally of the U.S. So what ?

Hypocrisy at its best. Remember, CIA used to consider Bin Laden as a freedom fighter.

Who says the generalMuslim population are content with US-Saudi relationship anyway? A lot of Muslim reformists (who are against the corruptive nature of their respective regimes) have been brutally murdered by their own governments. These reformists too labeled terrorists by the west.

Israel has the most nuclear power per capita in this world, with whistle blowers captured or executed. Why must focus on Iran?

On Darfour issue please refer to:
http://www.islamonline.net/livedialogue/english/Browse.asp?hGuestID=F316TD

"...the Sudanese government failed to contain the conflict and separate between the warring parties at a time when foreign intervention was looming large and the conflict starts becoming politically motivated.

Israel, the United States, foreign intelligence services and African states, which sought a regime change in Sudan, seized the opportunity and interfered in the Darfur crisis.

They found the conflict an ample opportunity to add fuel to the flames and politicizes the issue to topple the regime. And this is the story of the Darfur crisis."

Do not extrapolate the prejudice by using the southern Thai crisis. The root cause as agreed both by King Bumibhol, a devout Buddhist, and the Muslim General (forgot his name) was that the Thai government had systemically marginalised the Malays in the south. Remember Tak Bhai and the mosque shooting, which were big-time massacres committed not by some militia, but by a recognized state? What's wrong with highlighting the wrongdoings of a government which has more control of its country's own security?

Oh yes please don't extrapolate the issue to our internal sociopolitical status.

Let's not be sidetracked and focus on what Jeff tries to highlight.

80% of Iraqis feel the situation in the country was better before it was occupied.

It's NOT ETHICAL for any of us to justify the Iraqis' sufferings just because their and other Muslims' anti-terrorism stance is not loud enough.

Dr M defending justice?

O Please... Has he forgotten 1988?

NEW DICTIONARY TERM:

SADDAM - verb, to squash a powerful proxy alive only after elevating the proxy's status and power from nothing to something, due to the proxy's back-stabbing activities that jeopardize proxy sponsor's long term interests

e.g.
Anwar has been perfectly saddamised by Mahathir in Fall 1998. The politically-charged saddamisation is speculated by opposition parties' analysts to be triggered by Anwar's relentless pursuit of anti-corruptive investigation within Mahathir's circle of political advisors during the period of Mahathir's appointment of Anwar as the acting Prime Minister. Therefore, Mahathir is considered by many of his adversaries as a Saddamist tyrant, at times on par with the notorious Pharoah as portrayed in the Prince of Egypt epic. Mahathir's act of saddamising Anwar has occurred shortly after the introduction of a new USD-RM forex regime.

To Jeff and JY

To start with, JY, you worte : the west do not has the right to force democracy on others ... Do you mean USA and especially BUSH jr.? There were many countries in the west did not support the invation of Irak (France and Germany are two great examples) or the execution of Saddam. In fact only BUSH openly said it is a milestone. Most agreed Saddam should be punished for his crimes, but we thought it would be just life imprisonment. Many of our leaders in EU called the execution as barbaric! Anyway ...

Jeff: from the moment I learned of Saddam would be executed, I turned off the TV set. I do not support death penalty. I did not want to know.

The next morning I learned from the text-messages that Saddam was hanged and there were video clips. I refused to watch the news BECAUSE I think we should show respect to the death, and none should show this gruelsome photos of the last moment of a living person that was taken away unnaturally. And I avoided watching any vidoe clips of the hanging of Saddam religiously for the past 3 days. Instead I lighted a candle and pray there is now peace for his trouble souls.

Let us be respectful to the death, if/when we cannot have any kind words for Saddam. It would be kindness to remove his picture from this posting.

JEFF OOI says: I feel very much obliged to have it removed as you wished, Cindy. It was first meant as a shock treatment to jolt us into some deep thinking on humanity, from whichever side you look at it.

Let us maintain our breeding, decency and dignity and give Saddam his right to rest. I am sure none of us would like to be in his position, in our own death. So public.

I wonder what is going on with us human race. And I am sure the cellphone video clips must made some people very rich. And the media.

LKY has a different POV:

The United States, Iraq, and the War on Terror
By Lee Kuan Yew
Foreign Affairs, January/February 2007

Summary: In spite of its diffculties in Iraq, the United States was not wrong to have removed Saddam Hussein. The outcome of the Iraqi enterprise will be crucial to the course of the "war on terror." And success is still possible -- if Washington takes a page out of its Cold War playbook.

Lee Kuan Yew is Minister Mentor of Singapore. He was Prime Minister of Singapore from 1959 to 1990. This piece was adapted from a speech he delivered when accepting the Woodrow Wilson Award for Public Service in October 2006.

A Singaporean Perspective

The basic feature of U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War was inclusiveness -- a willingness to embrace any country that opposed communism, whatever its type of government. The United States contested the Soviet system and held the line militarily, and its consistent and comprehensive approach eventually led to the Soviet Union's implosion.

After the Cold War came the "war on terror." Islamist terrorists tried to bring down the World Trade Center in 1993 and bombed the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. Then came the attacks of September 11, 2001. In response, the United States attacked Afghanistan and routed the Taliban. Then, in 2003, the United States invaded Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein and establish democracy there.

During the war on terror, however, the United States has not been as inclusive as it was in its war against communism. Aside from those in the "coalition of the willing," even most European countries have distanced themselves from Washington.

The United States did not realize, moreover, the depth of the fault lines in Iraqi society -- between Kurds and Arabs, Sunnis and Shiites, and the members of different tribes and local religious groups. These tensions were contained during four centuries of Ottoman rule, and the British, who took over from the Ottomans in 1920, put Iraq under strong Sunni control, centered on Baghdad. Now, because of the destruction of the old Iraqi society, for the first time in centuries, power is in the hands of the Iraqi Shiites.

With Sunni control of Iraq removed, Shiite Iran is no longer checked from extending its influence westward. And by allowing the emergence of the first Shiite-dominated Arab state, the United States has stirred the political aspirations of the 150 million or so Shiites living in Sunni countries elsewhere in the region.

The United States has long relied on its traditional Sunni Arab allies, such as Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, to keep the Arab-Israeli conflict in check. Now the power of the Sunni bloc may no longer be able to counter an Iran that supports militias such as Hezbollah and Hamas against Israel. The new Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, found it necessary to publicly support the Shiite Hezbollah in Lebanon during the fighting this past summer.

I am not among those who say that it was wrong to have gone into Iraq to remove Saddam and who now advocate that the United States cut its losses and pull out. This will not solve the problem. If the United States leaves Iraq prematurely, jihadists everywhere will be emboldened to take the battle to Washington and its friends and allies. Having defeated the Russians in Afghanistan and the United States in Iraq, they will believe that they can change the world. Even worse, if civil war breaks out in Iraq, the conflict will destabilize the whole Middle East, as it will draw in Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Turkey.

On Iraq, the Singaporean government has been and is in firm support of President George W. Bush and his team. We have helped to train Iraqi police and have thrice deployed a tank landing ship to the Gulf, each time with about 170 personnel, a C-130 detachment, and three separate KC-135 detachments for air-to-air refueling missions. President Bush was right to invade Iraq to depose Saddam and try to remove the weapons of mass destruction that intelligence agencies in Europe and the United States assessed Iraq to have had.

But I became nervous when the United States disbanded the Iraqi army and police and dismissed all Baathists from the Iraqi government. I feared this would create a vacuum.

I recalled how when the Japanese captured Singapore in February 1942 and took 90,000 British, Indian, and Australian troops prisoner, they left the police and the civil administration intact and functioning -- under the control of Japanese military officers but with British personnel still in charge of the essential services, such as gas and electricity. Except for a small garrison, most of the 30,000 Japanese invasion forces had left Singapore and headed to Java within a fortnight. Had the Japanese disbanded the police and the civil administration when they interned the British forces, there would have been chaos.

Perceptions of U.S. unilateralism have triggered an informal countercoalition of necessity among those countries that oppose the coalition of the willing. Many in this countercoalition are not on the side of the jihadists. Russia and China, along with some European countries, have come together simply to protect their interests against what they perceive as U.S. encroachment on their respective domains. They have no fundamental conflict of interest with the United States.

To isolate the jihadist groups, therefore, the United States must be more multilateral in its approach and rally Europe, Russia, China, India, and all non-Muslim governments to its cause, along with many moderate Muslims. A worldwide coalition is necessary to fight the fires of hatred that the Islamist fanatics are fanning. When moderate Muslim governments, such as those in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Persian Gulf states, Egypt, and Jordan, feel comfortable associating themselves openly with a multilateral coalition against Islamist terrorism, the tide of battle will turn against the extremists.

REMAKING THE MIDDLE EAST

The Bush administration has set out to spread democracy in Iraq and the Middle East more generally. In the long run, democracy can prevail, but the process will not be easy.

A free and fair election, moreover, is not the best first step toward democracy in a country that has no history or tradition of self-government. Without adequate preparations, elections simply allow people to vent their frustrations against the corruption and inadequacies of the incumbents and vote in the opposition, regardless of its characteristics. This is what led to Hamas' gaining power in the Palestinian territories.

A better start would be to concentrate on education, the emancipation of women, and the creation of economic opportunity. Next should come a focus on implementing the rule of law, strengthening the independence of the courts, and building up the civil-society institutions necessary for democracy. Only then will free elections lead to a more democratic order.

To think that Iraq can go from dictatorship to democracy via two elections in three years is to expect too much. Such a transformation is an effort for the long haul, well beyond the two- and four-year U.S. electoral cycles.

In its struggles today, the United States should remember the principles and policies that guided its responses to Cold War threats and accept that no single power, religion, or ideology can conquer the world or remake it in its own image. The world is too diverse. Different races, cultures, religions, languages, and histories require different paths to democracy and the free market. Societies in a globalized world will influence and affect one another. And what social system best meets the needs of a people at a particular stage in their development will be settled internally.

Regarding the rest of the Middle East, Singapore is much indebted to Israel. When we became independent in 1965, Israel was the only country that helped us build a citizen army. The Israeli colonel who led a team of ten officers from 1966 to 1968 revisited Singapore as a brigadier general a decade later and was surprised at our economic progress. He lamented the slower economic progress in Israel. I told him we had been at peace with our neighbors and that Singapore's armed forces were a deterrent, a weapon of last resort against adventurism by any country. Israel, on the other hand, had been engaged in successive wars.

To solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there must be two states, one for Israel and another for the Palestinians. But the latter must be viable, one for which peace is worth making. The United States should urge Israel to encourage such a Palestinian state to emerge and help it prosper -- for the Palestinians will have reason to avoid war if war will destroy the future they are building for themselves.

Progress on the Israeli-Palestinian issue would not just be beneficial in its own right but would also relieve Sunni Arab discontent that arises from the perception that their countries acquiesce in U.S. support for Israel against Palestinian interests. If the United States were seen to actively support the peace process with the goal of a two-state solution, Sunni governments would be more likely to openly support U.S. policies for peace in the greater Middle East.

As for Iran, it is publicly committed to the destruction of Israel and will try to sabotage any peace settlement, because the continuation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is necessary for its fight against the Sunni Arab states for leadership of the Muslim world. Encouraged by North Korea's recent nuclear test, Iran will press ahead with its own nuclear program. If and when Tehran gets sufficient fissile material, the balance of power in the Gulf will be fundamentally changed. The Iranian problem will eclipse the Iraqi problem and be at the top of the international agenda. And if Iran's theocracy succeeds, it, not democracy, will be seen as the way of the future for many in Muslim countries.

COLLATERAL BENEFITS

The reason I am so focused on the Middle East is that my first close interaction with the United States grew out of the country's involvement in a previous painful struggle, that in Vietnam. Between 1966 and 1971, American leaders used to stop by Singapore after visiting South Vietnam to discuss the regional situation with me. Washington had sent in some 500,000 troops without sufficient knowledge of the history of the Vietnamese people and paid a huge price in blood, treasure, prestige, and confidence as a result.

Conventional wisdom in the 1970s saw the war in Vietnam as an unmitigated disaster. But that has been proved wrong. The war had collateral benefits, buying the time and creating the conditions that enabled noncommunist East Asia to follow Japan's path and develop into the four dragons (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan) and, later, the four tigers (Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand). Time brought about the split between Moscow and Beijing and then a split between Beijing and Hanoi. The influence of the four dragons and the four tigers, in turn, changed both communist China and communist Vietnam into open, free-market economies and made their societies freer.

The conventional wisdom now is that the war in Iraq is also an unmitigated disaster. But if the troubles in Iraq are addressed in a resolute, rather than a defeatist, manner, today's conventional wisdom can be proved wrong as well. A stabilized, less repressive Iraq, with its different ethnic and religious communities accepting one another in some devolved framework, can be a liberating influence in the Middle East.

The challenge now, as in the 1970s, is for the United States to find an honorable exit from a conflict that developed in an unexpected way. Once begun, however, the problem has to be seen through to the finish so that irreparable damage is not done to the United States and the world at large. An Iraq that coheres as one state; includes Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkmen, and others; and is not manipulated by any of its neighbors represents an outcome that would accord with the interests of the United States, Iraq's neighbors, and the wider world. Washington should therefore bring all of Iraq's neighbors into the process of achieving this objective.

The next president will face a new world. There will be not just Iraq but also Iran to contend with, and the long-term fight against Islamist militants will still only be in its early rounds. But the United States overcame the setbacks of the war in Vietnam, checkmated Soviet expansion, and became the indispensable superpower. With a wide coalition and a proper attitude, the United States can prevail now as well.

Yes I wish to second Cindy's opinion. The picture of hanged Saddam was not distributed out of compassion. I think we have the power to stop this kind of humane-less publicity. Our robust blogging culture should not lead us into thinking that public curiosity justifies the expose of any kinds of media materials, those that degrade another human being's dignity and honor.

Mahathir is making the same silly claims he did last time - that Bush has killed more people than Saddam.

Tun, face facts, please. Saddam triggered the Iran-Iraq War and the First Gulf War, which cumulatively killed about two million people. Are you suggesting Bush has killed that many in Iraq?

the finer points for ponder; Anwar Ibrahim was convicted for his corruption charges in the same court as well as his SUCCESSFUL appeal against his SODOMY charges.

The kangaroo court in Saddam's trial has been plagued with scandals such as murdered counsels for Saddam and the sudden change of judges as well as other anomalies; there was no appeal as far as Saddam could ever hope for ...

It is these finer points that distinguishes our due process of law where there is a right to be heard afforded to the accused as well as the right to appeal against the decision made not in favour of the aggrieved parties/accused/victim

Hello Jeff,

A BIG THANK YOU!

Cindy

I admit that there may be a PERCEPTION of double standard. But one must go underneath that and discover why such an image persists.

And they exist partly because of assumptions like this:
...because of 9/11. Before that, the west was happy to go it's own way. If osama had not sent his zealots over, irag & afghanistan would not have been invaded.
The West was happy to go its own way? Come on now..Thats a bit simplistic isn’t it? Everyone knows that America had its own statist self-interest at heart when it attacked iraq that had little to do with security.

Fruitopia, you said:
Can we objectively state that the furore raised by Muslims when there is perceived injustice against the Muslims (propagated by non-Muslims), is as great as that of Muslims condemning terrorists’ attacks which happen to be sponsored and/or undertaken by other fellow Muslims?

I agree with your sentiments. I appreciate the more sensitive way you presented your case. It does SEEM like many Muslims only scream and shout when bad things happen to them and not when they’re dished the other way.

First of all, a faith that has 1.3 billion followers, across cultural, ethnic, educational, language and other sociological spheres should never be stereotyped; thats my whole point.

Your image of Muslims should not stem from the Malays you come across and what they may have said. There are plenty of Malays like me who acknowledge the brutality of beheadings, of Saddam, of any other evil acts as evil before looking at the person's religion.

There are plenty here in Britain. Plenty in America. Plenty in Malaysia. Why is it less in Malaysia than America I hear you ask:

The history of Malaysia, the sociological reasons: the malay chauvinism that may have been fed to them, the fact that many live in Malay only areas..etc etc..

Similarly in Arabia. Arabs are not inherently like the way you 2 have described; not to mention that many Arabs are simply not that way.

These are the things that one needs to consider when drawing perspectives on a huge group of human beings like "Muslims".

What I hope you both understand is that these issues are real issues (unless you happen to be right-wingers who simply dont like to look underneath the surface) and that when one examines them, one cannot ever come up with sweeping comments like "Muslims......."

zk9, I can extrapolate whatever I want, thank you very much. If you saw the context of my illustration regarding the perceived Muslim double standards, there is a chance you might appreciate the point? I would like to show my appreciation to Vedderian who recognized the sensitivity of my point.

Allow me to quickly point out the factual inaccuracies in your assumption that King Bhumibol blames the Southern unrest solely/mostly on the government; that is simply untrue. Historically, Thai Southerners were collectively marginalized by the central government, regardless of religion. In fact, today, there is affirmative action favoring Muslims over Buddhists in the 4 Southern-most provinces.

The crux of the matter is, why is it that some Muslims are averse to condemning the daily atrocities taking place from Iraq to Pattani to Darfur, when they are propagated by fellow Muslims?

Your highlighting of the Kru Se incident (while valid), but at the same time conveniently ignoring the daily killings of innocent Buddhists and Muslims, which without a doubt were undertaken by separatist terrorists (who are Muslim) illustrates my point EXACTLY.

To answer Vedderian's question: no, my image of Muslims actually do not stem mostly form Malays. I've had the pleasure of closely associating with Palestinian-Jordanians, Iranians, Lebanese, amongst others in college. It has significantly contributed to my understanding on many global Muslim issues which are not endemic to Malaysia, such as that of the Sunni-Shiite divide.

It was not my intention to hijack the thread; however I felt that I had to respond to blatantly xenophobic comments.

dear zk9, let me quote what u wrote :Israel, the United States, foreign intelligence services and African states, which sought a regime change in Sudan, seized the opportunity and interfered in the Darfur crisis. Your source : islamonline by Dr. Hasan Mekkey is:
Advisor of the Sudanese Foreign Minister. ? Huh , u call that factual. That's precisely the problem, continue to blame the zionist, west etc for all yr problems. Why didn't u refered to more credible organisations such as :human rights organisation or http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=3060&l=1 (The International Crisis Group is an independent, non-profit, non-governmental organisation committed to preventing and resolving deadly conflict) or http://web.amnesty.org/pages/sdn-index-eng. are they all tools of the west or zionist , since they hold a totally different view ? Or are we, suppose to belive only islam online ?

I'm sick of this kind of thoughts. If this is barbaric, what do you called the millions of people killed by Saddam in the 30 yrs of his reign of Iraq?? Even if Saddam dies 1000 times, he will still not be able to give justice to the millions killed during his reign. It's about time the old man keep quiet & stop making the fools of himself. He has done enough of that already:)

well i personally apologize if i have offended anyone, as my main point is WHY put the perspective suddenly on the Muslims? As if we did not condemn terror enough.

I hate to see Muslims fighting each other more than anything else. But sadly we have to realize the interference of others who like to see Muslims fighting.

Maybe my islamonline source is biased due to the word 'islam' on it but trust me the online news has made lots of effort to pull in opinionleaders from both sides of the issue (that's why they call it DIALOGUE, open to even non-Muslims). Al-Jazeera and other news agents are beginning to follow the same trend.

Let's look at the interferences:

Muslim genocide does occur, and unfortunately these widespread systemic act of government officials has been shadowed by different sparse incidents of Muslim terrorists. There are Buddhist and Muslim terrorists and those acts have to be condemned, but acts done under the patronage of a constitutional state is the most abhorrent (eg Tak Bai).

The US has been actively supporting unpopular (read: those not representing the people) warlords in Sudan and Somalia, just like what they did in Afghanistan (like CIA once calling Osama the freedom fighter) and further cause interfightings between clans.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10238

Lives in the new Iraq and new Afghanistan have been far worse off than during the Saddam and Taliban era based on polls and statistics by the Iraqis and Afghanis themselves.

Palestinian factions fighting? The people there voted for HAMAS, so we can say pro-HAMAS people are the majority. When the international community led by the US and EU deprived their rights by imposing economic sanctions, we can understand why these govt servants reacted immaturely like they did to get a loaf of bread to feed the children.

The real crux of the matter is with no. of deaths reaching up the sky in places infiltrated by these sickening superpowers, why the Muslims themselves feel so pessimistic and being constantly bombarded with sentiments of inferiority complex, that certain quarters even blame the deaths and chaos totally on the entire Muslims' complacency as if certain non-Muslims got no share in this mess.

Don't generalize Muslims please. its hurtful. most of us abhor any act of terrorism done in the name of Islam. But why the west keep defending their war on terror in the name of democracy and human rights?

PentiumanC2D,

Millions killed by Saddam? How? Where you got your fact? Are you "amok" just because Dr. M made the statement?

Saddam to die 1000 times? How about Bush and Blair?

StanSukhwant,

Don't talk about human rights when you treat issues with biased approach. Tell me when you want to convict those war criminals who invade Iraq illegally. Can you?

If cannot, then real talk is only for those with whip in hand. The rest is talk cock.

StanSukhwant
fruitopia

Try imaging a scene where Saddam did the most nastiest thing that you can possibly imaginable to your loved one on Monday.

And I can be as sure as heck that you'll wish Saddam be executed on Tuesday.

Swift execution or not is just a matter of time.

[ DELETED -- Handle the issue. Don't shoot the Messenger by using a common noun in a deragatory context. If you can't offer a better argument to other readers' view, just shut up. When you comment in my blog, you have to behave in a civil manner. Don't resort to labelling the "Mamak". The Saddam Hussein issue has no relevance to "mamak". One more time and you will be banned. ]

jeffdaman, Jus what do u mean illegal invasion ? Iraqis were very happy when saddam got desposed. it is [ DELETED - Be civil when you offer your comments in my blog. One more F-word and I will have you banned. ] up now not because of the americans but becuase muslims have not learnt to live with each other in peace. I keep hearing all the time, it was illegal for americans to invade irag. It's like this say for example me & my neighbour both run our hoesehold using diferent management methods. Would i say that my method is better of course not. To each his own, what if one day my neigbour started beating up the kids and threaten to kill his wife ? Should i mind my own business or call the police ? If the police do come , isn't it wrong for the police to enter my neighbour's home because after all my neigbour did not invited the police . So now lets say that the police locked up my neighbour but now the brothers are fighting tooth & nail with each other... whose fault ? Always blame the others rite, it's never your fault. What blair & bush are guilty of is unilaterally thinking that they can solve irag's or islamic problems .It's never their principle to wholesale murder iragis, [ DELETED ]. That is why the atrocities of abdul gharib & haditha saw the light . They make the effort to correct the mistakes. There were far worse atrocities happeing in saddam's irag and are still happening in places like syria, iran . [ DELETED ]

I can't believe one have to kill millions then only justified to death sentence! What a sick idea! and just because he is influential.. some of you think he should not be hang? No doubt you'd said that because those died was not your children.

This is very political... these people are trying to influence the world... those makes noises probably are his cronies and beneficiaries. Some maybe try to make some noise so that their name appear is the world news! Wah, that's my hero, bull shit! Some probably out of sympathy... but I would not sympathise such an evil person.

Some said Bush is the real murderer. Yes, I agree too Bush should be hanged, but does not mean Saddam can escape the justice that was due.

When I watched news everyday, I asked myself, "what took them so long to sentence this guy?" I think he deserved it.

saddam should not be hang by current court. it should wait for trial by impartial democratic iraqi even it will take hundred years.

well i think death penalty is wrong by any means.

but lets face the fact people : Saddam is evil. death penalty or not, it s a diff matter. does he deserve to die...? i believe that only God can make dat decision.as i said, im against any death penalty.

mind you tha Malaysia is one of the countries still implementing death sentences, for people with lesser sentence (it is if you look at it this way : drug posession more than say 100grams :death sentence, so Saddam being responsible for hundreds even hundred thousand deaths is not?) well its a diff world, diff country...

look beyond the religion. just because he s a muslim, people make "politically correct" statements suddenly, declaring he s a good guy...? a martyr even?

well leave that to God i think.Iraqis made their call. albeit rightfully or not, properly or not. US puppets or not,lets put it this way : he was tried by the very people he "tekan" when he was in power....even so, will he still get a fair trial even without outside intervention? be realistic. I dont think so.

an eye for an eye...? not being judgemental, but that practice has been rehashed over and over again in de warring Arab countries. so wat happened to Saddam might be considered as payback.

whether he deserve death, ill leave it to you guys to decide.

as Jesus once said "Let he who have never sinned cast the first stone...." ill keep my hands in my pocket then.....

StanSukhwant,

Ok, why not you tell us what justify the invasion? WMD?

BTW, how you know the Iraqis are happy? Thru CNN? BBC?

I think you are trying hard to be relevant but you are not. Since you are giving the polis-kids-brother scenario, at least give it in a more relevant way as per your argument la. You should say: when your neighbor beat his kids, you took the matter into your own hand. You gate crash his home; beat him up instead of reporting the incident to the police. This, will be your example, right? If wanna tell better tell it right.

So, if US really want to prosecute Saddam because of his human right record, please do so, and do now to those involve at Sudan, Haiti, Somalia, East Timor etc. Why no action? That’s why I say, be fair and just to all.

And now Saddam is gone, when will US leave Iraq? How will US responsible to the innocent lives lost due to the sectarian unrest caused by overthrowing the Saddam-ruled government? Come on, don’t push away the responsibilities.

Jeffdaman, bbc is not partial ?You an authority on that ? I suggest you chek on the stats when US first invaded irag . yes, it's a mess now. All it shows is that sadly, islamic countries need dicators and no matter how bad they are. they are still better than total anarchy. Do countries like somalia, east timor, sudan threaten their neighbours ?.They are a problem to themselves and i rather leave them be. Same goes for darfur. If the death of 200,000 muslims dont seem to matter to the muslims. It does not matter to me too but when any incident happens involving the west or it's troops eg haditha and the whole islamic world erupts into how unfair the west is, at the same time conveniently overlooking it's own fault and not doing a single thing to correct it. That's where i draw the line . I personally dont support the iraqi invasion. My belief is that,if muslims want to slaughter each other wholesale, go ahead. But i draw the line, when the blame gets pushed to the west like or there is for lack of better words, too much hyprocricy. Jus like tdm going about how unfair the trial is etc etc , forgetting that he was himself the master kangaroo of such a court. I would have believed if he had spoken about the unfair courts, in places like syria, lybya, iran. The intelligence on irag was wrong . What if it was right,there would have been a major catastrophe, economically, socially politically. if today is messed up, it's becuase the 2 major factions cant live with each other.The question i always ask but i rarely get the answer to is ? if muslims cant live with each other in peace ? With who can thet live in peace with ? Please dont tell me again that's it's bush fault that the muslims are fighting with each other. Right till world war 1, muslims have always been fighting with each other.

Jeffdaman, bbc is not partial ?You an authority on that ? I suggest you chek on the stats when US first invaded irag . yes, it's a mess now. All it shows is that sadly, islamic countries need dicators and no matter how bad they are. they are still better than total anarchy. Do countries like somalia, east timor, sudan threaten their neighbours ?.They are a problem to themselves and i rather leave them be. Same goes for darfur. If the death of 200,000 muslims dont seem to matter to the muslims. It does not matter to me too but when any incident happens involving the west or it's troops eg haditha and the whole islamic world erupts into how unfair the west is, at the same time conveniently overlooking it's own fault and not doing a single thing to correct it. That's where i draw the line . I personally dont support the iraqi invasion. My belief is that,if muslims want to slaughter each other wholesale, go ahead. But i draw the line, when the blame gets pushed to the west like or there is for lack of better words, too much hyprocricy. Jus like tdm going about how unfair the trial is etc etc , forgetting that he was himself the master kangaroo of such a court. I would have believed if he had spoken about the unfair courts, in places like syria, lybya, iran. The intelligence on irag was wrong . What if it was right,there would have been a major catastrophe, economically, socially politically. if today is messed up, it's becuase the 2 major factions cant live with each other.The question i always ask but i rarely get the answer to is ? if muslims cant live with each other in peace ? With who can thet live in peace with ? Please dont tell me again that's it's bush fault that the muslims are fighting with each other. Right till world war 1, muslims have always been fighting with each other.

StanSukhwant,

Please look at my comment and reply. I don't wish to waste time and sway from the argument. Furthermore, tell me what makes you think that the invasion is not illegal... What did they do to deserve an invasion?

Don't talk about human rights when you treat issues with biased approach. Tell me when you want to convict those war criminals who invade Iraq illegally. Can you?

If cannot, then real talk is only for those with whip in hand. The rest is talk cock.

StanSukhwant,

If you can't even get the name of the country right, how on earth can we take your opinions seriously?