Saddam In His Tighty Whitey’s

[BigBank_Hank]

I really thought that there would be more interest in this story. By now I thought that the libs on here would be up and arms and Ruthie would be staging another protest for him to be removed from Baghdad and sent to Holiday Inn so that he could be more comfortable.

I really don’t think that the Iraqi people care about him either. I think that they are more concerned with getting their government up and running and getting their nation sovereign than the brutal dictator who used to rule them.

[vidcc]

obviously you don't know "liberals" as well as you think you do. try actually listening to what they say instead of what Mr. Rove says they say ;)


on the story I have to say that the only outrage I have seen is coming from the right and not the left. talk of "liberal" media...which is funny as "the sun" is a Rupert Murdock paper.

I think the true outrage should be coming from all of us unfortunate enough to have lost the contents of our stomachs after seeing the pictures :sick:

[Biggles]

There are two issues that are of concern.

Fristly, if these pictures aggravate the already delicate situation in Iraq it could lead to a further strengthening of the Sunni insurgency. The deaths of more Iraqis or Coalition soldiers is hardly worth the pleasure of seeing Saddam embarrassed.

Secondly, this man is a former head of state and is about to go on trial. There are strict rules governing the treatment of such people. I recall there were protests when the Iraqis showed pictures on TV of (fully clothed) American soldiers. This was considered a breach of the Geneva Conventions and the Iraqis were told to cut it out ... which by and large they did. If we want others to observe the rules we should be seen to observe them ourselves. Of course pictures will be taken, but they should have been retained by the owners until a suitable time after Iraq is stable or has moved on to another form of instability that would no longer be affected by their release.


Newspapers are always in a circulation war and this is simply about money. That it might cost Coalition soldiers their lives would appear to be irrelevant to them. In short, typical ratings induced myopia.

[peat moss]

I started a thread in the lounge, kinda tonge in cheek but was wondering what people thought of the humiliating pictures . I know this man is one of this decade's version's of Hitler. I was still curiuos tho as to opinions .

Edit : Spelling

[Biggles]

I started a thread in the lounge, kinda tonge in cheek but was wondering what people thought of the humiliating pictures . I know this man is one of this decade's version's of Hitler. I was still curiuos tho as to opinions .

Edit : Spelling

I think Saddam is hardly ever likely to be classed in the same category as Hitler. It is true that Saddam was responsible for a couple of insane wars (over relatively tiny scraps of land to boot) and a disturbing amount of people were killed as a result of them. However, whereas Hitler had racial dogma and Mein Kampf (a quick search of which will pull up about about 5 million reference) Saddam has his romantic novels (I think he has just finished his fourth).

In short, he was rather a brutal local dictator of the Mugabe sort or perhaps the guys that run Central Africa. The latter have killed more than Saddam in their long running wars but nobody even knows who they are. Saddam just happened to have his fiefdom on top of some the most important assets in the world and in a region that is a tinderbox.

On the whole I think it was unwise showing the pictures at this point ... I think it will do more harm than good. However, at least his undies were spotless. :)

[ruthie]

I really thought that there would be more interest in this story. By now I thought that the libs on here would be up and arms and Ruthie would be staging another protest for him to be removed from Baghdad and sent to Holiday Inn so that he could be more comfortable.

I really don’t think that the Iraqi people care about him either. I think that they are more concerned with getting their government up and running and getting their nation sovereign than the brutal dictator who used to rule them.
OK...I'll bite. Oh my..you've missed me, eh, hank? ROFL. Hmmm..Holiday Inn?
The real bullshit thing here is, as usual, an unidentified military person gave the pics to the Sun..actually, The Sun paid about 900 bucks for them. The issue here? Behavior of the military. Oh, yes..and that pesky little thing known as The Geneva Conventions. Imagine if Bush were found guilty of war crimes, and someone snapped a shot of him in his panties. course, there are quite a few homophobic closet gay republicans that might enjoy it.
It just goes to show how far along the dumbing down of america has gone. Our president is a moron, our Sec. of Defense is an idiot, and the military thinks that some juvenile eighth grade boy's locker room trick with the camera is going to "demoralize the insurgents".

[BigBank_Hank]

Easy now Ruthie don’t go jumping to conclusions again, remember Rathergate? As J2 pointed out these photos haven’t been authenticated yet.

[ruthie]

Hmmmm.....guess someone from The Sun slipped past security for a photo-op with Saddam.

[vidcc]

No liberal media?

Even if the liberal media itself says so? :huh:


"the sun" is part of murdocks empire...you know ....the man with "fox news".... hardly liberal. Murdock was the man that took on the print unions.

My point being that the outrage so far has been from the right wing blaming the liberal media for these pictures when it was printed by part of the right.... admittedly the far right in the uk is left of barbera striesand :unsure:

[Busyman]

I really thought that there would be more interest in this story. By now I thought that the libs on here would be up and arms and Ruthie would be staging another protest for him to be removed from Baghdad and sent to Holiday Inn so that he could be more comfortable.

I really don’t think that the Iraqi people care about him either. I think that they are more concerned with getting their government up and running and getting their nation sovereign than the brutal dictator who used to rule them.
Oh jeez.

You'll never get it Hank.

I am considered a liberal and couldn't give a fuck about Sodom Hussein.

You miss the point. We were against the war smart guy. Poeple arent going to just agree to a war just because

President Says So + Sodom Is Bad Man

It ain't enough. The pictures (there is another) aren't even a blip.

The pictures do however make it worse for our forces in Iraq and in the Muslim world. This can be blamed on irresponsible so-called journalism and corrupt military.

I'm against anything that gets our troops unnecessarily killed....that includes dipshit pictures and a bullshit war to begin with. :dry:

[Tikibonbon]

To be honest, so f'n what? Someone got a photo of him while he was changing clothes, got out of the shower, whatever. Peeping toms suck in whatever country. Just imagine the uprising if some one was to show these people a Sears catalogue, think of the inhumanity of it all!

[Skiz]

Saddam In His Tighty Whitey’s

Did I miss something on the news today? :blink:

[muchspl3]

I hate to say it but he sure has a big dick

http://images.thisislondon.co.uk/v2/news/sunfront200505_300x450.jpg

[MCHeshPants420]

I wanna see Cameron Diaz in her smalls, 'bout time the far right liberal media started catering to my needs. :glare:

[cpt_azad]

There are two issues that are of concern.
Secondly, this man is a former head of state and is about to go on trial. There are strict rules governing the treatment of such people. I recall there were protests when the Iraqis showed pictures on TV of (fully clothed) American soldiers. This was considered a breach of the Geneva Conventions and the Iraqis were told to cut it out ... which by and large they did. If we want others to observe the rules we should be seen to observe them ourselves. Of course pictures will be taken, but they should have been retained by the owners until a suitable time after Iraq is stable or has moved on to another form of instability that would no longer be affected by their release.


Newspapers are always in a circulation war and this is simply about money. That it might cost Coalition soldiers their lives would appear to be irrelevant to them. In short, typical ratings induced myopia.

Thank you for pointing that out :)

[Voetsek]

The sun are part of the gutter press.Murdoch all so owns the times now a tame load of trash.

[Skiz]

There are two issues that are of concern.
Secondly, this man is a former head of state and is about to go on trial. There are strict rules governing the treatment of such people. I recall there were protests when the Iraqis showed pictures on TV of (fully clothed) American soldiers. This was considered a breach of the Geneva Conventions and the Iraqis were told to cut it out ... which by and large they did. If we want others to observe the rules we should be seen to observe them ourselves. Of course pictures will be taken, but they should have been retained by the owners until a suitable time after Iraq is stable or has moved on to another form of instability that would no longer be affected by their release.

The reason they were violating the Geneva convention wasn't so much because a picture found it's was out and into circulation. It was because the prisoners were being put on live television, made to say that the US was wrong for attacking helpless people, etc. and they had obviously been tortured.

[Busyman]

I hate to say it but he sure has a big dick

http://images.thisislondon.co.uk/v2/news/sunfront200505_300x450.jpg
Wtf are you talking about?

You are gay?

[iamtheoneandonlyone]

I don't think anyone would want to see that. :sick:

[muchspl3]

Wtf are you talking about?

You are gay?
no, just saying....

[Biggles]

The reason they were violating the Geneva convention wasn't so much because a picture found it's was out and into circulation. It was because the prisoners were being put on live television, made to say that the US was wrong for attacking helpless people, etc. and they had obviously been tortured.


I am not sure that is correct Skizo. I think the rules are that no still or live pictures identifying the prisoners should be taken. I am sure if pictures of those GIs in their underwear had been released rather than the stilted press conference the Iraqis made them do, it would have still been considered a breach of the rules - and rightly so.

[GepperRankins]

no, just saying....
http://moderation.invisionzone.com/style_emoticons/default/glag.gif

[vidcc]

In any case, it only seems to follow that, in light of the recent Newsweek Koran-flushing fiasco (and the resultant outrage/deaths in the Mideast), that the Right would attempt to make a similar case with regard to the Saddam pix, don't you think?

I have to say I do genuinely think that the story has been siezed on to place the full blame on newsweek.....I think it did fan the flames... but the fire was already burning, something that seems to have missed the attention of many.


I think sometimes restraint should be the word of the day but I am worried about the implications. For the sake of argument let's say the story is true. Is it correct for the USA to cover up such practices?

I believe that we should not be doing such things to start with.

I know that it is not policy but incidents do happen, should we cover them up?..... Mr. Kerry branded a traitor for saying bad things happened in Vietnam. Is it wrong to point the finger at ourselves when we are telling the world how to be?

We should be showing the world that we won't tolerate our own doing such things...we should report that it happened and report the consequences for those involved

[Rat Faced]

I really thought that there would be more interest in this story. By now I thought that the libs on here would be up and arms and Ruthie would be staging another protest for him to be removed from Baghdad and sent to Holiday Inn so that he could be more comfortable.

I really don’t think that the Iraqi people care about him either. I think that they are more concerned with getting their government up and running and getting their nation sovereign than the brutal dictator who used to rule them.

Is this the brutal dictator that had a nightly TV show that shows "Terrorists" being "interviewed", before disappearing from the face of the earth.. as is currently happening there?

You know, those "Fundamentalist Muslims" and "Islamic Extremists" that, from interviewing those that knew them ... "Had to be dragged to a Mosque on special occasions, but they refused to vote in the election".

Or maybe its the Hypocracy again... its OK for US to break the geneva convention, but its all hell if THEY do...

People get tired of it, im sure im getting a little fed up with it all...

[vidcc]

If the flame is indeed burning, I don't feel we should cover anything up in lieu of unintended/unavoidable "flame-fanning", vid, but surely it isn't too much to expect Newsweek to exercise what, in any and every other circumstance would be considered due diligence, especially considering that lives might be lost?

If the story is not true it shouldn't have been printed...but then it should not be used as a scapegoat or smokescreen to cover other more serious causes


To deem proper sourcing a non-issue (as has been done in Newsweek's defense) is hideously disingenuous.

From what I know the source was previously reliable.... but it is still no excuse to print something without verification. I am not defending the reporting of untrue stories as fact. What I am objecting to is the the use of it as a smokescreen and blaming everything on Newsweek. It is not a non issue, but it is not IMO the main cause of the unrest as is trying to be implied.


Yes, but only after proper verification, and certainly not while any investigation of events is ongoing.

We have seen this as the normal course of events previously, and must acknowledge the media circus impedes and obscures the facts to an untenable degree.

Are we eager to get to the root of the thing, or merely (and inaccurately) to pronounce, based upon our incomplete, first blush impressions?

I think I have covered this above. We are in agreement that facts are the only thing that should count...all the facts.. not just a few.


It doesn't help when there is much misinformation given out to suit an agenda. We see this with the 527 groups...we see it every time a member of government opens his or her mouth when talking on agenda policy.

I object to false news. I object to sanitised news. I want the facts from my news...nothing else

[JPaul]

There are two issues that are of concern.

Fristly, if these pictures aggravate the already delicate situation in Iraq it could lead to a further strengthening of the Sunni insurgency. The deaths of more Iraqis or Coalition soldiers is hardly worth the pleasure of seeing Saddam embarrassed.

Secondly, this man is a former head of state and is about to go on trial. There are strict rules governing the treatment of such people. I recall there were protests when the Iraqis showed pictures on TV of (fully clothed) American soldiers. This was considered a breach of the Geneva Conventions and the Iraqis were told to cut it out ... which by and large they did. If we want others to observe the rules we should be seen to observe them ourselves. Of course pictures will be taken, but they should have been retained by the owners until a suitable time after Iraq is stable or has moved on to another form of instability that would no longer be affected by their release.


Newspapers are always in a circulation war and this is simply about money. That it might cost Coalition soldiers their lives would appear to be irrelevant to them. In short, typical ratings induced myopia.


Indeed, I concur, now I will read on.

[Skiz]

I am not sure that is correct Skizo. I think the rules are that no still or live pictures identifying the prisoners should be taken. I am sure if pictures of those GIs in their underwear had been released rather than the stilted press conference the Iraqis made them do, it would have still been considered a breach of the rules - and rightly so.

You are 100% correct Biggles.

I was just pointing out the severity of what they were doing (putting obviously tortured prisoners on live TV at gunpoint to read a statement bashing their own country) and these pictures of Saddam in a large area (bigger than a typical cell), in the sun, with fresh clean "tighty whitey's", and a full belly.

:lookaroun

[Rat Faced]

Yes, but only after proper verification, and certainly not while any investigation of events is ongoing.

We have seen this as the normal course of events previously, and must acknowledge the media circus impedes and obscures the facts to an untenable degree.

Are we eager to get to the root of the thing, or merely (and inaccurately) to pronounce, based upon our incomplete, first blush impressions?

So we'll tell the UN investigators in Iraq they can carry on then... oops, too late :ph34r:

[3RA1N1AC]

from murdoch's new york post.

http://www.imakecontent.net/images/2003/030818%20NYPost.jpg

http://img215.echo.cx/img215/5973/saddam0520050qy.jpg


seventy five hundred bucks for a saddam mannequin? yippee. just what the american taxpayer was dying to see his dough spent on. too bad the article is so rife with liberal bias. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050527/ap_on_re_us/saddam_on_display_3

also re: the liberal media. in the tradition of american chopper, american idol, american volcano, american shark attack, and made in america (hosted by cliff from cheers, on discovery's the learning channel)... the discovery channel will soon broadcast "greatest american," hosted by matt lauer of the notoriously liberal today show. http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/greatestamerican/greatestamerican.html

still a bit out of place on the discovery channel though. it'd prolly fit much better on a&e's history channel, reknowned for such historical programs as american wild west tech, american evel knievel, and american breaking vegas.

[GepperRankins]

"That is great, just terrific," he said. "It's realistic, it's history. It makes me feel that what our soldiers did was so impressive."

:huh:

[Rat Faced]

I think only a Right Wing Totalitarian could accuse Rupert Murdoch of being liberal :blink:

Actually, Murdoch would probably class the totalitarian of being a commie :rolleyes:

[GepperRankins]

i struggle to find anything liberal biased on those two things at all.

am i being rodded?

[3RA1N1AC]

hmm nev'mind