quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk: OK, so I'm taking odds on when the video's going to hit YouTube. Anyone? Anyone?
It was already there before you posted this. I went to see if it was there, but didn't watch it. I'm not sure why.
I have a friend who watched it right away. I just don't know how she, or anyone for that matter, can bear to watch someone getting killed.
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: One of the most eye-rolling tendancies you have, General Sax, is to frequently rattle off some aphorism related to war and death.
Makes you seem quite the blowhard, although you don't exactly need help in that.
Only the dead who died in a war where people fighting to make other people die in a war where people die know that people who are in wars where people die will probably die in war. And be dead with death. In war.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, I understood that much less than I understand the things GS writes, and yet it was more fun to read! Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was hard to make anything out once they drop him in the chute there is very little light. Just some wriggling really, if it helps.
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What makes me a bit nervous about Hussein's execution is that I don't know if he was killed for his crimes, or whether he was killed because he is in the minority ethnic group. You can say what you want about procedural justice, but if he were Shiite, and the crimes he committed were against the Sunni, the man may still be alive, which makes me wonder if he is dead because he murdered people or whether he is dead because he murdered the wrong people. Democracy is a blunt and nearly an amoral instrument, and we forget that at our peril. (well, minorites don't forget it; we get cagey.)
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I simply saw a man once reviled and revered, now broken and bewildered, summoning up one last attempt at self-righteousness on the gallows. One last hurried "I was right, you were wrong;" one last grab at the solipsism of Saddam the ruler before the final, fatal drop.
A part of me was glad that a monster had been slain, a part of me was sickened by his execution and all of the history that led up to it in that sorry and suspect part of the world.
Saddam had finally reached the fate of so many others like himself and had been sacrificed on his own altar. Dazed, still convinced that he had done what was right in the eyes of Allah (his own very twisted vision of Allah) and that he had done what was right for his nation, he met his end in a dingy, dark room, with no one to support him present, just like so many of his own victims.
By the time of the execution, Saddam was more than a broken man. He had been broken in spirit by the time he was pulled out of that spider hole. Sure, he spoke with fire in the courtroom, but he was still the broken king without a kingdom whose only real pleasure left were the daily snack-sized bags of Fritos he received from the American guards.
Monster that he was, there was this tiny, quiet part of me that felt sorry for him. But I feel much, much sorrier for those that had died because of him.
And I worry greatly at the sound of "Muqtada, Muqtada, Muqtada" that rang out in that dingy chamber before Saddam's gallows drop. As one monster dies, another is born like a filthy, pestilence ridden pheonix.
Posts: 45 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Muslims are torqued about when the execution occurred, distracting attention from Eid al-Adha.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Eid al-Adha was not on the 30th in Sri Lanka, but on the 31st.
Which day Eid falls on depends on how things are done locally - as in, whether it's dependant on when the moon is sighted (cloud cover can postphone that for a day or two) or if it's dependant on modern-day scientific calculations, for example. Different regions, different sects will not necessarily do it the same way.
In Sri Lanka, Eid was originally going to be on the 31st. Then it was switched to the 1st, then a couple of days later back to the 31st. I don't know why the switcherooni, but it did surprise me to learn that Eid was on the 30th in the Middle East or other countries.
Based on when Eid was here and the rest, and that Saddam was executed the day before, I didn't realize at first that it actually was on Eid elsewhere.
It also explains why the Muslims I know here weren't the least bit upset at the timing.
quote:Originally posted by PrometheusBound: Posting that video here would be infinitely more offensive than linking to porn.
To you. Not to everybody.
To me as well. I'd whistle any post that contained such a link, in addition to posting the most strident condemnation I could phrase while remaining within the bounds of the posting guidelines. I'm surprised that anyone other than General Sax has even considered linking it here; it's not like it's so hard to find that a link is necessary.
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: What makes me a bit nervous about Hussein's execution is that I don't know if he was killed for his crimes, or whether he was killed because he is in the minority ethnic group.
Given that judicial proceedings for the myriad other allegations against him had barely even begun, I think the execution was politically motivated.
The problems with the trial itself have already been alluded to in this thread, so I won't go into those.
I was beyond disgusted to see CNN and CTV showing parts of the execution video and shots of his corpse, and changed the channel as quickly as possible in each instance. Thankfully, the CBC had the decency to refrain from such vulgarity. I'd hoped that we might have been able to do the same here.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really do not understand the need to keep trying a person beyond the death penalty, hang them and be done with them, no need to keep letting the lawyers slurp at the public trough.
If you want the "what else they did" out in public view, then publish it for public consumption. If people want to research it to their satisfaction they are then welcome to do so, but there is no need to let the public money keep hemoraging in a settled matter.
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I really do not understand the need to keep trying a person beyond the death penalty, hang them and be done with them, no need to keep letting the lawyers slurp at the public trough.
If you're opposed to the death penalty on principle, trying to delay it is quite easy to understand. And if there is more at issue than simply the person's execution, it's quite easy to understand as well. There is emotional, moral, legal, and historical weight behind a trial, a weight that's not obtained simply by 'publishing results'.
So, if you don't understand it, you simply haven't really thought about it (possible), or you have and prefer to pretend other reasons don't really exist (also possible).
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is demoralizing on the public to have to endure the endless spectacle of trial (and yes dangerous in this case since his being alive gave hope to his supporters) especially when they are already condemned. Bottom line is the cost, as a friend of mine who is in sales said, stop selling once you get a yes.
This is the typical liberal tactic, any method of delay, be it fillibuster, legislating from the bench, or putting the widows on the pulpit. It is an assumption of moral superiority that justifies any tactic to obstruct the will of the body politic. (like trying to lose a war to gain back political power) to imply that my agenda is hidden or underhanded is another common liberal attack. My views are out there, to be loved or hated as people see fit. I am not trying to advocate 'delay' and call it fairness, especially when a few months of delay would have made him ineligable by law to face death.
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
I agree--for wholly unliberal reasons--with those who wish he had been tried for more of his crimes, with the caveat that I would not have wanted the trial to take so long that he could not be executed.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
General Sax, you have absolutely zero concept of what justice is about. Those Iraqis who are going to speak out against not waiting for further trials are not some "liberals" whom you seem to love lumping everyone who disagrees with you. In fact, there remains a whole ethnic group over there who is now completely denied having any semblance of official recognition by the law of the atrocities they suffered. Many will be glad that the monster is no more, but the fact that he did not stand and publically hear all of is accusers is an injustice to those who did not have the opportunity to be represented. The opinions on this execution will not break down into binary 'good / not good' camps in Iraq, and let us be honest: the most important aspects here are how this will affect the Iraqi people.
To the person who questioned the level of US involvement in the move to execute so quickly, I would highly doubt anyone who posts here has the security clearance required to know the amount of involvement the US government had in the decision to execute, nor do I realistically believe that anyone who does have access to such information would be authorized to share the amount of influence the US had or possibly took advantage of. We can argue about reports from news agencies and statements of the Iraqi government being technically sovereign, but unless one or the other government decides to share with the public how much deliberation took place between governments, then we really can only speculate. I will say that to suggest no deliberation took place is extremely naive and quite ignorant of the nature of the current relationship between the Iraqi and US governments. Whether it was a suggestion from the US government (which I doubt) or more of a wink and a thumbs-up from the US when they heard about it (more likely) would be a more realistic discussion on the level of US participation in the timing of the execution.
My opinion is that an execution of the man was inevitable, if only for the number of accusations and amount of evidence to Hussein's direct involvement in the crimes. The timing feels incredibly poor to me, though, more politically motivated than it was a natural progression of justice. Perhaps the continued problems with insurgents on the Iraqi government provided the impetus, or the upcoming speech by Bush on the change in tactics in Iraq, but I am sure it was both along with other reasons, the only debatable aspect being how much of any reasons had more weight.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't have minded an expedited trial to hear more of the crimes against him, if only to give a voice to the forgotten who were brutalized during his reign, but I can sort of see why they went ahead with it. He was already sentenced to death, the other trials would have looked even more farcical on top of this. There was no way everyone would be satisfied with the outcome of this trial. But I think we would have come to this anyway for everything the man has done. His execution wasn't to make him a scapegoat, or as an offering to the US, he really DID do all or at least most of the bad things he's accused of. The timing might be political, but the act was earned during his tenure as Dictator in Chief.
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: This is the typical liberal tactic, any method of delay, be it fillibuster, legislating from the bench, or putting the widows on the pulpit. It is an assumption of moral superiority that justifies any tactic to obstruct the will of the body politic. (like trying to lose a war to gain back political power) to imply that my agenda is hidden or underhanded is another common liberal attack. My views are out there, to be loved or hated as people see fit. I am not trying to advocate 'delay' and call it fairness, especially when a few months of delay would have made him ineligable by law to face death.
You realize you might have to eat some of those words if Republicans start fillibustering Democratic legislation right?
And what is the Iraqi statue of limitations on the death sentence once a verdict is reached?
And we don't need to lose the war to win back the government, you did it for us. I'd say thank you, but I would have preferred to win it back fair and square, and not through right wing negligence and bungling, especially given the cost in blood and money.
Gotta say though Sax, the GOP party lines have gone from amusing to tired for me. Get some new material.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Once he turned seventy he could no longer be executed. That was in a few months.
I am sorry the truth with reference to the facts is 'tiresome' but they do not change to suit your attention span.
Do not count on us losing, you may 'support the troops' but you do not respect them if you think they are going to lose anything.
Saddam could only die once, and he did, dead for one murder or a hundred, it does not matter. His victims know what he did and they can now make the pilgrimage to urinate on his grave, that is the important thing.
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it is demoralizing on the public to have to endure the endless spectacle of trial
Yep. Too bad the accused have a right to a trial. The public demoralization is practically unbearable! We should just kill everyone accused of a crime and spare the public the agony.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, I'm not particularly sympathetic to GS's position here, but your last response to him was wildly out of context. GS's position has been that once the accused has been convicted in a trial, there is no need for additional trials. The demoralization was cited as a cost of the additional trials to justify not having them.
It has nothing to do with killing everyone accused of a crime.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Giving water to the dead is a measure of respect in a desert culture, (don't forget your Dune!)
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: Once he turned seventy he could no longer be executed. That was in a few months.
Which accounts to many weeks, and many days past Eid and easily not a date that would facilitate political opportunism (like the coming Bush speech). Plenty of time to have him stand in court and hear his accusations.
quote:I am sorry the truth with reference to the facts is 'tiresome' but they do not change to suit your attention span.
Interesting you mention short attention spans, since it is the glaring lack of patience that is what rankles most people with regard to the timing of the execution. Perhaps you should cease calling the kettle so black.
quote:Do not count on us losing, you may 'support the troops' but you do not respect them if you think they are going to lose anything.
Only their lives, unfortunately. If I had a nickle for every time someone pontificates 'support the troops' in a statement, yet their action is equivalent to slapping a bumper magnet (made in China) on their SUV, I'd be a rich man and getting nothing but more rich every day. Good for you for claiming to have been a soldier, but when is the last time you sent a care package? I get a little sick of hearing the chicken-hawks ramble on and on about the righteousness of war and using the troops who are over there, most of them two or three tours over-extended, as a security blanket for their ham-handed armchair quarterbacking.
Support of the troops has little to do with supporting the war. I want the troops I've been sending my support to know that their contribution is appreciated regardless of, not contingent upon, whether I support the cause for which they must fight. If you really want to support the troops, then stop using their lives for your political rhetoric. In other words: shut up and do something about it. If you like, I know a few places where you can get information on sending real and honest and honorable support to some soldiers from your general locale. Then you can feel just a tiny bit more self-righteous when you use the tired 'support our troops' line on internet forums and sticking a magnet on your car.
Support isn't a fair-weather friend. Either you do it consistently, or you are all talk. I'm sure you could even create a thread here to accumulate donations for multiple care packages to our troops. Whether you are man enough to actually put forth the effort instead of spouting your impotent rhetoric is completely up to you. This is my challenge to you, General Sax: if you want to persist in your bragging on service and rhetoric about real support for the troops in this forum, then create a thread asking people to pool resources to actually do something instead of just talking about it. If you can meet the challenge, good for you. If you can't or won't, then you've proven yourself the blowhard others have suggested. Since 'freedom isn't free,' you should have no problem investing the minimal energy to 'support our troops' in this case.
quote:Saddam could only die once, and he did, dead for one murder or a hundred, it does not matter. His victims know what he did and they can now make the pilgrimage to urinate on his grave, that is the important thing.
Saddam could only die once, and all of his victims deserved the right to accuse their attacker in a public forum. Justice exists for the sake of the victim, not for the accused. In this case, justice has been served for one group of people, at the cost of allowing for justice to the other groups of people. That is the crux of the issue, not the guilt of the accused or the punishment that was due. The problem is that there are now a great number of Iraqi people who will not be afforded the justice of accusing Hussein in a public trial, which is the most fundemental piece of a criminal justice system. This concept of the victim or the state accusing the perpetrator in public forum goes all the way back to the very beginnings of civilization, and most historical instances of denying this right of justice to the victims has been viewed as holding elements of fascism. Surely, General Sax, you are not advocating that our justice systems not behave in a fascist manner. That stands against everything we in America officially stand for as a nation.
You claim to be patriotic, yet you pick and choose the concepts on which this country was founded that you would champion. Hussein is dead and most Iraqis are likely happy for the fact, but that does not bear weight on whether democratic justice has been served.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Bob, I'm not particularly sympathetic to GS's position here, but your last response to him was wildly out of context. GS's position has been that once the accused has been convicted in a trial, there is no need for additional trials. The demoralization was cited as a cost of the additional trials to justify not having them.
It has nothing to do with killing everyone accused of a crime.
But it has everything to do with true justice. Do we have trials to prolong the inevitable or do we have trials to allow the accused to stand before their alleged victims and be accused publically? I have always been under the impression that justice involves the voicing of accusations and not the rush (or avoidance) of punishment. General Sax has stated repeatedly that no more trial was necessary, when a great deal more victims deserved the chance to accuse Hussein of his crimes.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Justa, I responded to a particular criticism to a particular statement, and my response is just as valid if everything you say is true as it would be if everything you say is false.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
They got to see him die, they could not expect more no matter what they said he did. Maybe it can be a new game show, Like liars poker (bullshit) put on two Iraqi families a night and have them start out with an atrocious story each, then have them one up each other until the audience says "Liar" and then expose the evidence of who was really a victim... It has everything a hit show needs...
It do find the chanting of Al'Sadr's name disturbing since there is every chance we are going to have to serve that outstanding warrant on him soon and kill him in the process, now that will be a true test of wills and the aftermath will be a real spasm.
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have literally no understanding of what justice means to people other than yourself, General Sax. That is very sanctimonious of you.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Bob, I'm not particularly sympathetic to GS's position here, but your last response to him was wildly out of context. GS's position has been that once the accused has been convicted in a trial, there is no need for additional trials. The demoralization was cited as a cost of the additional trials to justify not having them.
It has nothing to do with killing everyone accused of a crime.
Actually, if you read his statement closely, that was just cited as a particular of the general principal. I can't help if he didn't say it the way you think he meant it.
quote:I think it is demoralizing on the public to have to endure the endless spectacle of trial (and yes dangerous in this case since his being alive gave hope to his supporters) especially when they are already condemned. Bottom line is the cost, as a friend of mine who is in sales said, stop selling once you get a yes.
see the "especially" there?
I'll grant that your version of it is a possible interpretation. I'll even grant that it's likely to be the one GS intended. But when I read what he actually wrote, it reads as follows:
A: TRIALS demoralize the population.
A': <in this case in particular because it gives a boost to SH's supporters>
B: This is especially true if there's already been a conviction.
I think what he meant to say and what he actually said are two different things. I decided to poke fun at it.
quote: But when I read what he actually wrote, it reads as follows:
A: TRIALS demoralize the population.
A': <in this case in particular because it gives a boost to SH's supporters>
B: This is especially true if there's already been a conviction.
What you're missing in there is "therefore we should not have trials" anywhere in that chain of reasoning. According to your recounting of what he said, your conversion of his statement to kill everyone without trial is unsupported by his original statement.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, yeah, it just seemed like the logical extension of a policy of no trials.
I guess he DOES leave room open for just letting people go, or putting them in jail for however long we feel like it too. Should've noted that in my reply.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by quidscribis: Um, one clarification.
Eid al-Adha was not on the 30th in Sri Lanka, but on the 31st.
Which day Eid falls on depends on how things are done locally - as in, whether it's dependant on when the moon is sighted (cloud cover can postphone that for a day or two) or if it's dependant on modern-day scientific calculations, for example. Different regions, different sects will not necessarily do it the same way.
In Sri Lanka, Eid was originally going to be on the 31st. Then it was switched to the 1st, then a couple of days later back to the 31st. I don't know why the switcherooni, but it did surprise me to learn that Eid was on the 30th in the Middle East or other countries.
Based on when Eid was here and the rest, and that Saddam was executed the day before, I didn't realize at first that it actually was on Eid elsewhere.
It also explains why the Muslims I know here weren't the least bit upset at the timing.
Unless I'm quite mistaken, for Baathists and Sunnis Eid is begun one day earlier. So, in Saddam's and many Sunni eyes, he was executed on a holiday. I believe the Iraqi government asked a prominent Sunni political party , and were told that there was nothing rong with executing Saddam on that day. It was on Arab T.V., I'll look for a link in English.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Ah, yeah, it just seemed like the logical extension of a policy of no trials.
I guess he DOES leave room open for just letting people go, or putting them in jail for however long we feel like it too. Should've noted that in my reply.
He didn't advocate a policy of no trials. That's sloppy thinking, especially for you, Bob.
He stated a cost of having trials. That's it. (Granted, he did it in the context of saying we don't need another trial, but adding context strengthens my case, not yours, because Saddam HAD a trial.)
It's important to recognize the cost of things we are advocating. It doesn't make one more protective of civil rights to pretend that such protections have no costs.
Trials cost money. They can lead to violence. They can result in a dangerous predator being released into society. They can result in innocent people being thrown in jail or killed.
All of these are true. None of these lead directly to the conclusion "We shouldn't have trials."
They do, however, allow us to decided how to make them better and to decide which types of harms should receive priority of prevention.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No need. I know he was executed on a day that was Eid for many Muslims in many countries. I was clarifying for those who thought Eid was not on that day but on another or who were otherwise confused about that sort of thing. Heck, it confused me for a little while.
And most Muslims here are Sunni, including my husband and his family.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hiya Quid, things have kept me from being very active here of lates on Hatrack. I've been missing it quite a bit!
Posts: 45 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
I do think your latest post reads a lot more analysis into GS' statement than is strictly warranted.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: think it is demoralizing on the public to have to endure the endless spectacle of trial (and yes dangerous in this case since his being alive gave hope to his supporters) especially when they are already condemned. Bottom line is the cost, as a friend of mine who is in sales said, stop selling once you get a yes.
Truly, this is shaping up to be a year of miracles because I actually agreed with someone General Sax said! Well, just the first part, anyway. I think it was certainly dangerous for Saddam to be alive, not because he had supporters but because he was a famous enemy of 'unpopular' major player in the region, that is us. I also think it was demoralizing to Iraqis to have him alive, partially evidenced by the fact that many people refuse to believe he's actually dead until they had a corpse in front of them.
The rest is bunk, of course. Death is not sales, for one thing.
quote:This is the typical liberal tactic, any method of delay, be it fillibuster, legislating from the bench, or putting the widows on the pulpit.
It's a typical political tactic. You're frankly a partisan sheep if you believe it's solely the province of liberals. You might make a case that liberals have been more famous for such things in the past decade (especially if you listen to 'Fair and Balanced'), but that just might have more to do with minority-party politics than the accusation you're making.
It's also entertaining how quickly you revert to liberal conspiracy-plot-overthrow-the-majority rhetoric, too. It must be a comfortable world in which you live, where your opposition is so neatly and uniformly contemptible. Doesn't really make you strain your brain very much, I expect. The only question of interest is, did you arrive at it because you don't like to strain your brain? Or do you not strain your brain because you've arrived at that philosophy?
quote:Do not count on us losing, you may 'support the troops' but you do not respect them if you think they are going to lose anything.
While I certainly agree that many who 'support the troops' don't actually respect them, your use of this train of thought is really just along the lines of, "America, love it or leave it!"
Thus, it's worth briefly addressing and then dismissing.
quote:myself and those who think as I do, you know, the rest of us...
I think that perhaps you're not so dull-witted to think that you're part of the rest of us. Most people I've talked with-a pretty wide spectrum, I think-will actually listen after the discussion is begun. You won't.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sopwith, again: Hiya Quid, things have kept me from being very active here of lates on Hatrack. I've been missing it quite a bit!
Does that mean you'll be visiting a bit more often then? Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick: Well, Iraq and Sri Lanka obviously have different Eid customs. Cool.
Not necessarily, and this is where I realize I wasn't clear enough.
The day Eid falls on being dependent on the sighting of the new moon can still be different for different locations. Perhaps Sri Lanka had a lot of cloud cover, so it wasn't sighted for a couple more days, so it falls on the 1st or the 2nd. Maybe in Saudi Arabia, they had a clear night and saw it immediately - it falls on the 30th.
Most places (people) will schedule Ramadan and the Eids according to local new moon sightings. Some places - or people - will say, oh, Saudi Arabia's holding it on the 30th, so we will, too.
Yet another possibility to the local sighting concept, from here, is that
quote:it is agreed upon by Muslim scholars that the new month begin 30 days after the beginning of the previous month.
Even if all Muslims everywhere followed the practice of relying on sighting the new moon, there is still variability involved on when the various Eids would fall.
I don't know what the practice in Iraq is. I'll see if I can find out.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: myself and those who think as I do, you know, the rest of us...
With the proper medication you could probably get back down to just the one voice in your head again.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: If you want the "what else they did" out in public view, then publish it for public consumption.
Unfortunately, much of the information regarding "what else he did" has now gone to the grave with him.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
