Wednesday, January 03, 2007
I see you crawling in my garden, subhuman, subhuman:
Leave it up to Ephraim Karsh and The New Republic to explain that the reason Arabs are perturbed by Saddam Hussein's execution is that "in the Middle East, physical force remains the main--if not the sole--instrument of political discourse." Ah: a gussied-up way of saying that the primitive Arabs understand nothing but violence; Saddam was the most violent; and that explains why they're upset. Notice that in this formulation, Saddam is the most Arab of all Arabs -- or, put another way, all Arabs are Saddam Hussein in miniature. It's a short step from there to arguing that We Will Not Wait On Events As Dangers Gather, and so it's time to start taking some preventative measures against millions of Neo-Saddams.

Of course, an alternative explanation is that the manifold injustice of the lynching of Saddam Hussein -- done during the beginning of the Sunni observance of Eid by Shiites -- is enough to horrify the civilized among us, despite the fact that the man on the gallows is deserving of no sympathy.
--Spencer Ackerman
Can I be a pedantic fuckface for a second?

I think the word "lynching" should be reserved for killing someone that you know, or can seriously argue, is not guilty for the purpose of warning other people.

Saddam Hussein was guilty. Still he didn't receive a fair trial.

It would have been more honest to engage in "victor's justice" and kill him like the Romanians did to Ceaucescu.

But I don't think this qualifies as a "lynching."
Blogger Bill Smith | 2:14 PM

You know what, you're right. I should have used a different word. If you know how to draw the "blogger-slash" through a word in Blogger, I'll do so.
Blogger Spencer Ackerman | 2:23 PM

It's the "strike" keyword, which can't be demonstrated in comments. < strike > lynching < / strike> without the spaces.
Blogger jfaberuiuc | 3:46 PM