Killing Saddam and his sons was an act of patrilineal genocide

[wuushew]

First consider the following ideas.

One can either consider "genocide" as the act of removing the practitioners of certain cultural traits from the larger population or one can consider it the act of removing specific genetic traits from a population. The jewish holocaust was an attempt at both of these ideas.

Since we are all of the human race and share a common ancestor out of Africa the legal definition of hereditary genocide is rather arbitrary and subject to definition of scope. There are traits common to all Arabs just as there are common traits between blood members of a specific family. Those that view genocide as sad unnecessary loss of genetic material and diversity rightly are justified in considering it a crime. Why was Saddam Hussein's sperm not preserved? Why was he not allowed possible conjugal visits as part of a life sentence?

His death penalty carried two victims. The first was Saddam Hussein's self, his personality and what ever you feel might have been subject to a death penalty. The second was his biological, self-replicating genetic makeup which is now lost to us forever.


It is true that Saddam also had three daughters, however from ancient times through that of today's Japanese royal family it is no secret that family bloodlines are preferred to be carried my male offspring.

Uaday was insane and had no children. Qusay had anywhere from two to four children. The only mention of a son was Mustapha Hussein who was killed in the same raid as his father. If any remaining child(ren) are female then Saddam Hussein's male bloodline will have become extinct by our hand. If we knowingly executed Saddam after these facts then we are factually guilty of genocide.


Bottom line is this. Unlike the death sentence this crime can be reversed if we undertake the reproductive cloning of Saddam Hussein. I believe George W. Bush to be a fundamentalist nut job who invaded Iraq to settle a blood feud with the Hussein clan as a way of vindicating his father in addition stealing oil and getting off on war.

George Bush the Elder's seed still lives on in the current President's nephews: Pierce Bush, Johnathan S. Bush, Billy Bush, George P. Bush and Jeb Bush Jr.





This post is not satire. If you disagree please explain.

[Cleita]

1. In the Trojan War literary cycle, the Achaeans kill all the Trojan men

but spare the women and children to take into slavery. They make an exception for Hector's son, a child, and kill him because he is the last of the direct lineage of the Trojan kings. It seems the roots of our genocidal tendencies run very deep. However, our ancestors back to that late Bronze Age event were semi-barbaric warrior societies. We are supposed to have evolved into a civilized society. I guess not.

[cali]

2. Sorry, this post is so ridiculous

that a reasoned refutation is undeserved. The potemkin trial and show execution of Saddam was clearly wrong, but genocide? You don't get to make up your own definition of genocide and the deaths of Saddam Hussein and his sons doesn't fit the definition by any stretch of the imagination.

[Solo_in_MD]

3. Your argument is circular and your conclusion unsupported

Consider this...if the his male progeny had not been involved in the barbarism and not fought to the death, would they have been killed? Ample precendent says no.

[wuushew]

4. Right but we killed Saddam after their deaths

Saddam did not appear to want to suicide himself.

The point of the post is that even if you accept the appropriateness of his death sentence, we failed to take the easy steps that could have preserved his genetic legacy.

[cali]

5. What easy step?

I don't accept the trial as legitimate and I'm disgusted by the theatre surrounding his death, but why the fuck should anyone have "preserved his genetic legacy", and what were the easy steps that should have been taken? Not to mention that he has surviving progeny.

[wuushew]

8. Bloodlines in themselves are to be valued

otherwise genocide is a meaningless concept.

We could have frozen his sperm for any Sunni woman willing to be a surrogate at a later date. The cost would have been minimal in dollars. Why do you object?

[cali]

9. I do object.

I didn't want Saddam executed, though I have little sympathy for him, but the suggestion that we should have frozen his sperm is ludicrous. In addition your statement that bloodlines of a specific individual must be valued or genocide is meaningless, is obscene. It devalues all the real genocide victims. And as I said, Saddam's bloodline has hardly come to an end. He has surviving children and grandchildren.

[Solo_in_MD]

6. I would preferred see his water left to drain into the sand like Alia.

What makes you think genetic material or at least markers have not been preserved?

[JVS]

7. Genocide is not the killing of a family. Find the right word and you're fine

[no_hypocrisy]

10. That's the same reason the Bolsheviks murdered both Tsar Nicholas II and

his son, Alexei, the Tsarovich. To kill the bloodline so the dynasty was effectively concluded.