# Saddam, Hussein, or Mr. Hussein



## Hockey13

I've always wondered why the American media tends to call Saddam Hussein "Saddam" with no afterthought to the fact that just "Saddam" is a bit disrespectful in the US for a world leader and that we even refer to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin as "Hitler" and "Stalin." I think the prevailing mood in the US is that Saddam was at the very worst not as horrible as either of those two guys, so what gives? What does your country's media call Saddam Hussein?


----------



## Tsoman

Saddam suffices.


----------



## Hockey13

Tsoman said:


> Saddam suffices.


 
Don't you have any qualms with the newsmedia taking what amounts to be a firm propaganda position in favor of the United States?


----------



## Tsoman

Saddam Hussein is not a world leader. He's a dead man walking.

But anyways, the world media refers to George Bush simply as "Bush" so it makes sense that they call Saddam Hussein "Saddam." I think they picked Saddam because Hussein seems to be a more common name.


----------



## Jana337

Hockey13 said:


> with no afterthought to the fact that just "Saddam" is a bit disrespectful in the US for a world leader


Not quite accurate. Click.

Jana


----------



## Hockey13

Tsoman said:


> Saddam Hussein is not a world leader. He's a dead man walking.
> 
> But anyways, the world media refers to George Bush simply as "Bush" so it makes sense that they call Saddam Hussein "Saddam." I think they picked Saddam because Hussein seems to be a more common name.


 
Saddam Hussein has been called Saddam since at least the first Gulf War. Bush is still more respectful than Saddam, and most newsmedia I watch or read tends to call him President Bush at first, and then favor toward "Bush" at the end of a report/article, which is perfectly acceptable. The question here is why should they prefer a first name when they call other Arabian leaders by their last names or full titles. Do you mean to say that Saddam is much less common than Hussein? By using the first name I feel like people tend to think of him as a naughty child instead of a menacing world leader.


----------



## Tsoman

I would say it's because we are on a first name basis


----------



## Hockey13

Jana337 said:


> Not quite accurate. Click.
> 
> Jana


 
Fascinating article! However, I do stress that I think it remains disrespectful in our country since Saddam is seen as a familiarty within Iraq. So by using the familiar term that no Iraqi would use in his presence, we are either being familiar with him or disrespectful of him, especially in the eyes of Americans who take their cues from repetition of practices of formality.


----------



## ElaineG

Look, the NY Times and the Washington Post don't call him Saddam.  They use formal terminology.  So we're talking about the tabs, and I think they are historically and universally disrespectful.

Back in the day, Stalin was often referred to in the American media as Uncle Joe.  Why, I couldn't tell you.

I've read plenty of Italian and French articles that refer to W as W. 

You won't remember, Hockey, but Maggie Thatcher was often just "Maggie" or even "Mags" in the tabloid press.  

I'm sure there are a gazillion other examples.


----------



## Hockey13

ElaineG said:


> Look, the NY Times and the Washington Post don't call him Saddam. They use formal terminology. So we're talking about the tabs, and I think they are historically and universally disrespectful.
> 
> Back in the day, Stalin was often referred to in the American media as Uncle Joe. Why, I couldn't tell you.
> 
> I've read plenty of Italian and French articles that refer to W as W.
> 
> You won't remember, Hockey, but Maggie Thatcher was often just "Maggie" or even "Mags" in the tabloid press.
> 
> I'm sure there are a gazillion other examples.


 
You're right, but CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, and many other relatively respectable news sources do call him Saddam. I was referring to those since I know the NY Times, the WP, and the WSJ would generally follow traditional rules on such a thing.


----------



## ElaineG

Hockey13 said:


> You're right, but CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, and many other relatively respectable news sources do call him Saddam. I was referring to those since I know the NY Times, the WP, and the WSJ would generally follow traditional rules on such a thing.


 
I checked CNN.com (I never watch the TV channel) and they seem to call him Saddam Hussein and Hussein.   But I suppose any story picked up from the AP would use Saddam for the reasons explained in the article linked by Jana.

I'm not sure that Fox News is a respectable news source, although they are of course "Fair and Balanced." 

The NYPost never met anyone who deserved a last name: It's all Hill, Bill, Rudy, W, and Saddam to them -- plenty of disrespect to go around.


----------



## Outsider

Hockey13 said:


> What does your country's media call Saddam Hussein?


"Saddam Hussein", sometimes shortened to "Saddam", more rarely to "Hussein" (I'm guessing for stylistic reasons, to break the monotony in the text), but most often "Saddam Hussein". Occasionally, "the Iraqi ex-president".


----------



## Heba

Hockey13 said:


> What does your country's media call Saddam Hussein?


 
 Saddam Hussein


----------



## quitejaded

WOw! I never thought of that! I don' think most americans have qualms about it because (atleast us younger ones) do not really notice that. There is also an idea that Saddam does not deserve respect in the first place. Usually we say "Saddam Huessein" anyways! We say the whole thing most of the time.


----------



## spakh

In Turkey Saddam Hussein or Saddam. The former is more common in media. But Hussein(Hüseyin) is not used, as there are lots of Husseins in Turkey.


----------



## cuchuflete

The article that described how Iraqis called (past tense) their former leader was dated at a time when he was (past tense) a world power:

*You say Saddam, I say Hussein - what's in a name?*

  Updated Wed. *Nov. 20 2002* 4:28 PM ET


----------



## Outsider

They make a big deal out of the fact that Hussein is a name Saddam inherited from his father, but that's quite common. It's called a patronymic, and I don't see why it shouldn't count as a last name.


----------



## .   1

We call it Saddam Hussein.  One does not bestow honorifics where honorifics are not deserved.

.,,


----------



## ireney

We generally go for Saddam Hussein. "Sadam" by itself is used only in a derogatory way.


----------



## LouisaB

In England we say 'Saddam Hussein'. I think one or two of the really trashy tabloids do say 'Saddam', but they represent the lowest common denominator in our society.

'Saddam' only would be widely regarded as a deliberate insult, and wouldn't be used by an educated person who wished their views to be taken seriously.

I take Elaine G's point that other people have been given similar abbreviations, but I don't think they're really comparable. 'Uncle Joe' is a nickname. 'Maggie' was indeed widespread for Margaret Thatcher, but there are lingering feelings in the press that it is actually rude to call a woman by her surname only, and that it is truly more respectful to use the Christian name. Many women support this view, since their first name is often the only one they have which is truly theirs - their other name is frequently their father's or their husband's.

The surname abbreviation for a man has no disrespectful connotations on reporting. Churchill is fine. So is Eisenhower. Bush can count himself very lucky to be in such exalted company...

The Christian name only for a man is plain rude - unless he actively seeks that kind of familiarity (as our Conservative Party leader 'Call Me Dave' does, along with certain comedians, TV personalities et al). Someone genuinely trying to report impartially would never, never simply say 'Saddam'.

Louisa


----------



## ElaineG

> there are lingering feelings in the press that it is actually rude to call a woman by her surname only, and that it is truly more respectful to use the Christian name.


 
Or are there lingering feelings in the press that there is something funny about a woman running a country and that it's OK to call her by a diminuitive?

A lot of commentators, including in the Italian paper I read daily, seem very cozy with "Condie", whereas I don't remember Colin Powell ever being anything but Colin Powell.

Anyway, the American press who called Stalin "Uncle Joe" in the 1950s were mocking him, not using it as as an affectionate nickname -- there wasn't much love lost in mainstream America for Stalin.  I don't see how that's different at all from "Saddam".

Anyway -- I've yet to see a concrete example of a publication that calls "Saddam Hussein" "Saddam", but doesn't also talk disparagingly about Hill or W (depending on their political perspective) or Tony or Gordo or whomever.  

I think we're comparing apples to oranges here.  FoxNews may call him names, but they call a lot of people names.  Ditto the tabloids.


----------



## beclija

In German, he is usually referred to as "Saddam Hussein". You will find "Saddam" in headlines and the like, but not or hardly al all in articulated texts. You won't find just "Hussein" - I guess it is because that is a much more common name. 
Newspapers don't say "Mr. Saddam Hussein" or anything the like, but it is not a tradition to use "Mr. X" or "Mrs. Y" when talking about public figures anyway. Using "Herr X" or "Frau Y" somehow implies I am talking about a somebody I personally know, though on a formal basis. They do sometimes use academic degrees, though. So, we have coalition talks between "Schüssel und Gusenbauer" or "Dr. Schüssel und Dr. Gusenbauer" or even "Wolfgang Schüssel und Alfred Gusenbauer", but never between "Herrn Schüssel und Herrn Gusenbauer".


----------



## maxiogee

Some people come to need only one of their names. Newspapers love one-name people, it's good for headlines. (When Rumsfeld's replacement was named in RSS feeds, I wondered what Bill Gates was getting into!)

Saddam suffices to the West because we don't know other Saddams - we do know of other Hussein - try King of Jordan, for instance. Bush and Blair need their surnames because we all know too many Georges and Tonys.


----------



## LouisaB

ElaineG said:


> Or are there lingering feelings in the press that there is something funny about a woman running a country and that it's OK to call her by a diminuitive?


 
Quite possibly, but that's a separate issue from the one under discussion here. The 'first names for women' rule holds in the UK for any woman in public life, regardless of whether she's running the country or a crêche. The press are trying hard to break themselves of the habit (because it falls foul of the equality rules) but they weren't so careful back in the 80's.



ElaineG said:


> Anyway, the American press who called Stalin "Uncle Joe" in the 1950s were mocking him, not using it as as an affectionate nickname -- there wasn't much love lost in mainstream America for Stalin. I don't see how that's different at all from "Saddam".


 
I never said a nickname had to be affectionate! The difference between using a nickname and calling a man in public life by his first name is that no-one using a nickname expects what they're saying to be taken as serious comment....



> Anyway -- I've yet to see a concrete example of a publication that calls "Saddam Hussein" "Saddam", but doesn't also talk disparagingly about Hill or W (depending on their political perspective) or Tony or Gordo or whomever.


 
Hopefully there isn't one! Then nobody needs to defend its use.

Louisa


----------



## tweety79

In Jordan, he is simply called Sadam Hussein........................its weird to only say saddam...


----------



## LV4-26

Interesting. I know George and George have often called him "Saddam" but I think Jacques calls him Saddam Hussein. As for Tony, I'm not sure.


----------



## cherine

In Egypt, we call him Saddam Hussein, but I've also seen some papers use only Saddam, specially in titles (where there's need for space).
Usually, we call famous figures by on name when they're unique : i.e. never Hussein, because there are so many Hussein, but why not Saddam, al-Qadh'dhaafy (president of Lybia), Bash'shar (Syria), Mubarak (Egypt). This being derogatory or not depends mostly on the general tone of the context where the name is mentioned.

I'd like to add, about titles (Mr. and the like), that newspaper, t.v. and radio news those names are usually preceded by ar-ra'ees الرئيس (the president), except for Qadhafy whose title is "colonel" (al-3aqeed) العقيد .


----------



## Tao

Does it really matter whether he's referred to as "Saddam" or "Saddam Hussein"? If one reads in the paper '"Saddam" of course we know who were talking about, and that should be enough. To refer to him as "Saddam Hussein" or "Mr. Hussein" or "Mr. Saddam Hussein" or whatever would be unncessary information.


----------



## natasha2000

To begin with, he is no mister. He is a war criminal.

In Serbia, we call him Saddam or Saddam Hussein. In some demonstrations against Miloshevic regime in the past, the sign = was put between the first names of both: Sloba = Saddam.

(Sloba comes from Slobodan, which is the first name of Miloshevic).

Neither of them deserved any respect, so why should it be given to them?


----------



## LV4-26

natasha2000 said:


> Neither of them deserved any respect, [...]


...let alone any affection, I presume...
So why should you call them by their first name? 
I mean in my country calling someone by their first name is normally a sign of affection and/or familiarity. Do we have a cultural gap here?


----------



## natasha2000

LV4-26 said:


> ...let alone any affection, I presume...
> So why should you call them by their first name?
> I mean in my country calling someone by their first name is normally a sign of affection and/or familiarity. Do we have a cultural gap here?


 
No cultural gap.
Yes, I agree with you. In my country, too. But it is also a sign of respect towards important people if we call them Mr. X instead by their first name. Saddam is supposed to be an important person. Good or bad, he is important in the world's history.

I was just giving the answer to the original question.



> I've always wondered why the American media tends to call Saddam Hussein "Saddam" with no afterthought to the fact that just *"Saddam" is a bit disrespectful in the US for a world leader* and that we even refer to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin as "Hitler" and "Stalin."


----------



## JazzByChas

Well....to be respectful of someone, regardless of their notoriety, is called for, especially in a formal setting, like a newspaper article, or a diplomatic meeting between two countries. 

Now, if you ask most high-ranking political figures, here, outside of thier office, what they called Mr. Hussein, they might refer to him as "Saddam."

(and that would not imply familiarity or affection)


----------



## Hockey13

natasha2000 said:


> Neither of them deserved any respect, so why should it be given to them?


 
That is, first of all, *your opinion*, and you should treat it as such. Secondly, I expect the news to be presented in an unbiased manner. To live in a country where the newspapers spew biased propaganda is not fun. Naming him something other than what we would typically name a foreign leader amounts to our newspapers drawing little devil horns on his pictures. To say someone deserves no respect is an intensely emotional response to a question that I think was presented with regard to media coverage.


----------



## natasha2000

Hockey13 said:


> That is, first of all, *your opinion*, and you should treat it as such. Secondly, I expect the news to be presented in an unbiased manner. To live in a country where the newspapers spew biased propaganda is not fun. Naming him something other than what we would typically name a foreign leader amounts to our newspapers drawing little devil horns on his pictures. To say someone deserves no respect is an intensely emotional response to a question that I think was presented with regard to media coverage.


 

Should I draw the conclusion then, that you respect Saddam and others like him?

Of course it is my personal opinion, we all here expose our personal opinions. I wouldn't dare (unlike some) to claim that what I say is absolute truth. 

And of course it is emotional response. What other response would you expect? I would also answer very emotionaly if you asked me if Bush deserves respect. But then, we don't call him George. I guess he deserves a little bit more respect than Saddam... 

Let me tell you something. In MY PERSONAL opinion, there is none or almost none of politicians in this world that deserves respect. In order to be a good politician, you have to have some characteristics that couldn't be precisely called virtues. Now, depending on how one uses or abuses those characteristics, one can be a good politician or a blody war criminal and dictator.
But this is my personal opinion, based on my personal experience, and it shouldn't be taken for granted and absolute truth...


----------



## Hockey13

natasha2000 said:


> Should I draw the conclusion then, that you respect Saddam and others like him?
> 
> Of course it is my personal opinion, we all here expose our personal opinions. I wouldn't dare (unlike some) to claim that what I say is absolute truth.
> 
> And of course it is emotional response. What other response would you expect? I would also answer very emotionaly if you asked me if Bush deserves respect. But then, we don't call him George. I guess he deserves a little bit more respect than Saddam...
> 
> Let me tell you something. In MY PERSONAL opinion, there is none or almost none of politicians in this world that deserves respect. In order to be a good politician, you have to have some characteristics that couldn't be precisely called virtues. Now, depending on how one uses or abuses those characteristics, one can be a good politician or a blody war criminal and dictator.
> But this is my personal opinion, based on my personal experience, and it shouldn't be taken for granted and absolute truth...


 
The point I'm trying to make is that you aren't making a revolutionary statement in calling Slobodan Milosevic or Saddam Hussein war criminals. It is your opinion that billions of others also share, but it is not the duty of the free press to slander people to promote agendas. They exist to attempt to accurately portray the events of the world. As I said above, a newspaper calling him Saddam to show disrespect is not a newspaper I want to read. That is like walking up to a propaganda booth and asking them to preach to you. It's absolutely ridiculous and biased. If they make such decisions about Saddam Hussein, what would they do to the opposition party in their country? Where does the bias and slander end?


----------



## Redisca

Hockey13 said:


> _t is not the duty of the free press to slander people to promote agendas. They exist to attempt to accurately portray the events of the world. _


_  Oh yeah?  Silly me, I thought their role was to entertain us.  Events of the world are very boring when accurately portrayed.  I  take it you haven't seen "Shattered Glass"._


----------



## natasha2000

Hockey13 said:


> The point I'm trying to make is that you aren't making a revolutionary statement in calling Slobodan Milosevic or Saddam Hussein war criminals.


 
Somehow I don't like you tone here. I never pretended to make "revolutionary statement". I just said what I think, and obviously, I am not alone in this thread. Nevertheless, you found me particularly interesting to reproach. I wonder why?



> It is your opinion that billions of others also share, but it is not the duty of the free press to slander people to promote agendas. They exist to attempt to accurately portray the events of the world. As I said above, a newspaper calling him Saddam to show disrespect is not a newspaper I want to read. That is like walking up to a propaganda booth and asking them to preach to you. It's absolutely ridiculous and biased. If they make such decisions about Saddam Hussein, what would they do to the opposition party in their country? Where does the bias and slander end?


 
I agree with you here. But let's be real, they call him only by his first name, they are not using "bloody murderer" "fucking bloodsucker" or any other "nice" atributs that for sure can be called propaganda. I think you are overreacting a little. This is MY PERSONAL opinion, please don't take it as an absolute truth.


----------



## Hockey13

Redisca said:


> Oh yeah? Silly me, I thought their role was to entertain us. Events of the world are very boring when accurately portrayed. I take it you haven't seen "Shattered Glass".


 
I think you have misunderstood me. If I had elaborated...

The role of the free press should not be to entertain us or tell us what we want to hear, it should be to accurately portray the world's events.


----------



## natasha2000

Hockey13 said:


> I think you have misunderstood me. If I had elaborated...
> 
> The role of the free press should not be to entertain us or tell us what we want to hear, it should be to *accurately portray the world's events.*


 
And calling Saddam by his first name they don't?


----------



## Hockey13

natasha2000 said:


> Somehow I don't like you tone here. I never pretended to make "revolutionary statement". I just said what I think, and obviously, I am not alone in this thread. Nevertheless, you found me particularly interesting to reproach. I wonder why?


 
You can choose not to like my "tone" if you please, but my original question was not, "Does Saddam Hussein deserve to be respected?" I find it demeaning for people to presuppose the stupidity of the average person so much so that they must use the first name of a leader in this sentence:

In 1984, Saddam killed 3,000 Kurds.

Do you really believe that the facts do not speak for themselves without having to add the unwelcome commentary of the editor/writer?



> I agree with you here. But let's be real, they call him only by his first name, they are not using "bloody murderer" "fucking bloodsucker" or any other "nice" atributs that for sure can be called propaganda. I think you are overreacting a little. This is MY PERSONAL opinion, please don't take it as an absolute truth.


 
Let's make this clear: I do not want people to have to say "this is my opinion" before everything they say. What bothered me about your reply was that it gave a justification for media bias based on *what you believe*. Where I come from, that is called propaganda, and falls under the headline of propaganda regardless of whether it's purposefully demeaning a foreign leader by saying his first name, drawing devil horns on his picture, calling him a "fucking bloodsucker," or inventing facts about him. Imagine if the New York Times called Senator John Kerry "Jonny Boy" during the 2004 presidential campaign. It skews the perception of the public and leads to pressure to adjust policy decisions or to change votes, even if it happens in a very small way.


----------



## Hockey13

natasha2000 said:


> And calling Saddam by his first name they don't?


 
Must I affix another amendment to my statement?

...in an unbiased manner.

You are skipping a mile around the point if you tell me, "but Saddam _is_ his real name." If they call him Saddam in a malicious manner but defend themselves with that argument, they have still sacrificed their journalistic integrity.


----------



## natasha2000

All that you said, I can only call as famous political kerektnes. but I see you so stuck to your own opinion and unable to see other points of views, therefore in order to avoid any further fruitless discussion, I retire from this thread. You asked a question, I answered, you didn't like my answer. I don't have problem with that. Have a nice day, Mr. Hockey.


----------



## Hockey13

natasha2000 said:


> All that you said, I can only call as famous political kerektnes. but I see you so stuck to your own opinion and unable to see other points of views, therefore in order to avoid any further fruitless discussion, I retire from this thread. You asked a question, I answered, you didn't like my answer. I don't have problem with that. Have a nice day, Mr. Hockey.


 
If you call journalistic integrity political correctness, then you're right, I can't even begin to imagine your point of view. You answered part of my question, promoted your opinion, asked a question of your own to which I responded, and refused to provide a counterpoint to my claim that malicious name calling by a newspaper amounts to propaganda.


----------



## natasha2000

Hockey13 said:


> ....and refused to provide a counterpoint to my claim that malicious name calling by a newspaper amounts to propaganda.


First of all, I cannot answer to that, since I do not consider malicious calling someone by first name. It can be a lack of respect, yes, but malicious? If a newspaper calls someone by his first name, and then informs truth, I don't see where is the problem. 
As I already said, you are exaggerating, mate. Or we just don't speak the same language.


----------



## Victoria32

Hockey13 said:


> That is, first of all, *your opinion*, and you should treat it as such. Secondly, I expect the news to be presented in an unbiased manner. To live in a country where the newspapers spew biased propaganda is not fun. Naming him something other than what we would typically name a foreign leader amounts to our newspapers drawing little devil horns on his pictures. To say someone deserves no respect is an intensely emotional response to a question that I think was presented with regard to media coverage.


It reminds me of a picture on the cover of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad... from September I think. Photochopped, as they call it - if you know the picture, you will know what I mean.

_*1984 (*_Orwell's book) springs to mind. 

VL


----------



## emma42

As has already been pointed out on several occasions, you cannot treat non-western names as western names.  Calling SH "Saddam" is not the same as calling Tony Blair "Tony", nor is calling SH "Hussein" the same as calling Tony Blair, "Blair".


----------



## maxiogee

The problem with calling this person Saddam or Hussein (or with using only part of  anyone's name to depict them - when we are talking about their evilness) is that we end up losing what can be a very nice name.
I'm sure that Adolph was a nice, and possibly meaningful name for a German to pick for their child up until the middle of the last century - and Hitler is possibly an ancient and venerable surname - but because those two names on their own are enough to bring up deep feelings in many people around the world, I doubt there's many baby Adolphs about and I imagine that anyone called Hitler probably changed the surname they gave their children.
You don't get many children being called Judas, either  And yet his mother probably thought it a beautiful name.


----------



## Redisca

maxiogee said:


> I imagine that anyone called Hitler probably changed the surname they gave their children.


According to my Bathroom Reader, the 1939 New York telephone directory listed 22 Hitlers.  In 1946, there were none.



maxiogee said:


> You don't get many children being called Judas, either


  Maybe that's true for Ireland, but among Jews, "Judah" is still a very common name.


----------



## .   1

emma42 said:


> As has already been pointed out on several occasions, you cannot treat non-western names as western names. Calling SH "Saddam" is not the same as calling Tony Blair "Tony", nor is calling SH "Hussein" the same as calling Tony Blair, "Blair".


It is exactly the same in western ears.
By this logic Mr. Saddam Hussein is also wrong as it combines an eastern name with a western honorific.
This is a tricky question.
How to refer to a person not of my culture who is infamous within my culture.
I do not believe that he deserves any respect.  I could be wrong but that is my belief.  I believe that he killed people for personal gain.  I believe that he killed many people.
The convention within my culture is to refer to a convicted felon by their full name; Raymond John Denning.  Not Mr. Denning nor Raymond Denning.
Really bad people who have stepped so far outside of civilisation that they are not really recognised as being part of society are referred to by just their surname.  Milat is such a creature.

*mister* _n_ *1* an informal form of address for a man.  *2* _Naval_ *2a* the official form of address for subordinate or senior warrant officers.  *2b* the official form of address for all officers in a merchant ship, other than the captain.  *2c* _US Navy._  the official form of address used by the commanding officer to his officers, especially to the more junior.  *3* _British_ the form of address for a surgeon.  *4* the form of address for officials holding certain positions: _mister chairman._ _vb _*5* (tr) _informal_ to call (someone) mister.  [C16:  variant of MASTER].

Saddam Hussein will never again be in a position of authority so according to the definition of mister there are many reasons indicating that Saddam Hussein no longer deserves the honorific.

Does not a crime against humanity display an utter lack of humanity?

.,,


----------



## emma42

dotcommacomma, I think you misunderstand me.  My point was a linguistic one, not a cultural one.  The linguistic problems of dealing with non-western (for want of a better term) names in western language settings has been dealt with much earlier in the thread.


----------



## curly

I'm in no position of power, and yet i'm referred to as "Mister" all the time.


----------



## Victoria32

maxiogee said:


> I'm sure that Adolph was a nice, and possibly meaningful name for a German to pick for their child up until the middle of the last century - and Hitler is possibly an ancient and venerable surname - but because those two names on their own are enough to bring up deep feelings in many people around the world, I doubt there's many baby Adolphs about and I imagine that anyone called Hitler probably changed the surname they gave their children.
> You don't get many children being called Judas, either  And yet his mother probably thought it a beautiful name.


In 2003, I taught children with developmental dsiabilities in a kindergarten near my home, with a lot of families from Sri Lanka, and a few from North Africa.These Muslim children included at least one Saddam, named in probably 1999...


----------

