Now lets try to make sense out of this,
He was hanged for the crimes he is "convicted" in the massacre at
Dujail back in 1982.
CNN said, that he paid a visit to Dujail and people tried to
assassinate him. After the failed attempt, he supposedly rounded up
suspects and tortured/killed them.
So in essence, his crime was a pre-empted move to safeguard himself
and kill people who are associated with the attempt on his life.
Those people are killed with a summary trial and most are innocent
anyway.
Fast forward 21st century, New York was attacked on 9/11 and
triggered Bush to embark on a crusade against terrorism. He did so
on the reason as a right given to a nation by United Nations the
right to pre-emptive strike in name of defense.
He attacked Afghanistan as he said it harbours terrorists, I don't
doubt him.
He attacked Iraq as he said it has WMD, Iraq had WMD but not found
during the invasion.
But during the process, he killed civilians along the way, killed
2996 (as of today) of his soldiers, captured illegal combatants,
tortured them (remember Abu Gharib), his soldiers raping
Iraqis.
So why is a man who killed innocents because that village tried to
assassinate him hanged, but a man who did the same in name of
"self-defence" go scot free.
