Saddam's Death: Reactions

During last night's Shabbat dinner, my parents and I reflected on the fact that Saddam had been dead for an hour (taking time zones into account, of course). But my parents felt that while he deserved death, the event did not change by even a slight margin the goings-on in Iraq. However, we did agree that it was good for Saddam to be hanged with haste and without alerting the MSM beforehand so that the MSM did not have enough time to do glorifications such as a History Channel-style "The Life of A Dictator" kind of program, even though there might be takes on Saddam's "martyrdom" in the coming day or days, Surprisingly, I've seen none of this just yet.

Some Israeli reactions are quite particularly interesting (as reported by ynetnews), particularly the words of Baruch Marzel, who Efrat Weiss calls an "extreme right-wing activist," that "such will all of Israel's enemies lose their lives...Each dog gets his day. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Saddam Hussein is waiting for you." Now believe me when I say that I hate Ahmadinejad and Saddam as much as any Marzel, but those words are honestly a little over the top and don't support Israel's image as a country of self-defense only.

Personally, I think the Knesset's rep. Yisrael Katz of Likud put it in better terms: that Saddam's death sends "a clear message and a red light to all the leaders of the Middle East who support terrorism and threaten war...Whoever supports terrorism will end up on the gallows."

And then there's the much-under-reported Arab-Israeli view, as put forth by the Knesset's Ahmad Tibi of United Arab List-Ta'al, who said, "Saddam's execution is a sadistic act and a mark of Cain on the American occupation...Even dictators deserve humanitarian treatment." Personally, I don't know why this guy's still in the Knesset after that statement.

Finally, let us hear what Egypt has to say. Its Foreign Ministry spokeperson told AFP that "Egypt regrets the fact that the Iraqi authorities chose to judge the former Iraqi president on the first day of Eid al-Adha." Yeah. This coming from the nation that invaded Israel on Yom Kippur.

Ynetnews also reported that Israelis cannot visit the Temple Mount during this time because of the aforementioned holiday. Okay, so let's take the Egyptian FM's words in perspective. It's okay to ban Israelis from their holy site during a Muslim holiday, but not okay for a genocidal, calculating, menacing maniac to be hanged during that same span of time? Riiiiiiiiight.

And there's something about Spain. Following the Madrid terrorist attack, the Spanish elected the terrorist sympathizers. And following the Basque separatist group (ETA) bombing, the Zapatero gov't suspended all prospect of talks with ETA. It's funny that I'd never thought I'd wonder: why can't we sometimes be like them?

A report has also been issued that Saddam will be buried by his hometown. This is ridiculous. We nab him from supporters, kill him, and give him back to the same said supporters so they can bury him as they see fit. It's kind of hard to put that scenario in any sort of positive light.

Lastly, stoning is being instituted at the Hajj. Come back for more as we see how this plays out...

The Accused & The Reality

Okay, so we know Hamas and Hiz B'Allah are on Bush's national shitlist. And so it should be. But we all also know that Bush's shitlist just doesn't apply to San Francisco State University. Yes, you heard that right: all cultures, ethnicities, and hate-inspiring dogmas are protected in that lame, sorry excuse for an institution. Basically, some time in the last few weeks, some local College Republicans stomped on "homemade" Hamas and Hiz B'Allah flags. But guess who's raising a stink? Well, let us put the facts together:

The OSPLD and ASi uphold this phrase in the University's Strategic Plan: “SFSU facilitates teaching, learning and work experiences among students, faculty and staff that promote equity and social justice within a respectful and safe environment.” Okay, that's a fair rule of conduct.

Next: "Amid heavy campus police presence at an Oct. 17 anti-terrorism rally in Malcolm X Plaza, some members of the crowd turned angry when the College Republicans stepped on homemade Hezbollah and Hamas flags, though the student group claims they were not initially aware the flags contained the Arabic symbol for God."
Again, okay. So, the College Republicans did not know that Hiz B'Allah, which translated into "Party of God," would not have the Arabic symbol for God on the flag. How stupid of them, one might say, for not drawing that connection. However, some credence should be given to the fact the CR students were unaware (and hence would not have stomped on the flags had they known the presence of a God-symbol would inspire backlash). But we all know that Hiz B'Allah and Hamas use propaganda and lies to further their agenda, so a God-symbol on any of their flags should be taken with a face value of zilch. So, now, who are these "members of the crowd?"

Well: "After that, the College Republican-organized rally dissolved into a heated shouting match between the group and a mix of students, including some Muslim students, eventually resulting in formal complaints to student representatives."
Um, "some Muslim students?" I would have hoped this batch could have placed a difference between respectable Islam and outright terrorists groups. But their inability to draw this conclusive difference is truly a shame.

And a priceless quote: ‘They were voicing their concerns that this event was even allowed. They were offended,” said Kimberly Castillo, board member and chair of University Affairs, the committee that drafted the resolution. “We felt it our duty to respond.”
Honestly I could not stop laughing. Offended? They? I would only expect Hamas and Hiz B'Allah sympathizers to be offended. Shows you where some people's loyalties lie (hint: not with the U.S.).

The Associated Students board's resolution states thus: “The actions on the part of the College Republicans amount to no more than hateful religious intolerance, and constitutes an attempt to defy policies outlined and defined by San Francisco State University’s values,” the resolution says. “Members… pre-mediated the stomping of the flags knowing it would offend some people and possibly incite violence.”
Now, you see, I have serious trouble believing the CR students were truly attempting hateful religious intolerance directed specifically at Muslim students. That is an unfounded accusation. And the concept that the CR could be punished because somebody would be offended is also a complete lack of common sense. If all acts that "offended" somebody were punishable, the AS board would be printing resolutions against everything by the minute. And for that matter, since burning any flag would doubtlessly offend someone, why not concurrently ban burning of the American flag and, for that matter, all flags? I don't see them doing that!

And that is all I have to say on this matter,
- The Samaritan