 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Saddam's response: Briefs!
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: dianavan Date: 24 May 05 - 11:42 PM What good would it have done to have "taken him out?" There would have been civil war to determine which tribal warlord would take his place. Saddam is just one of many. Doesn't matter who tries to take control - they will have to be ruthless to maintain it. Better it be someone from the middle east than an outsider. Thats why the U.S. is having such a struggle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Peace Date: 24 May 05 - 11:33 PM They tried that. Missed it seems. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Kaleea Date: 24 May 05 - 11:33 PM Somebody with a camera needs to get a life! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Ron Davies Date: 24 May 05 - 11:21 PM It would also probably have had to be an inside job--it's naive to think you could have "taken him out" with a well-placed bomb. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Ron Davies Date: 24 May 05 - 11:19 PM It should have been done INSTEAD of the war, as I said at the time,--and however many millions of dollars it cost, it would have been worth it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Peace Date: 24 May 05 - 12:48 AM "If it does, I hope we take him out." That should nave been done before the war started. It would have disorganized his military. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Big Al Whittle Date: 23 May 05 - 09:16 PM they should have left him down that hole he was hiding in and filled it in - saved everybody a lot of trouble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Once Famous Date: 23 May 05 - 04:08 PM Probably not, and it won't happen anyway. If it does, I hope we take him out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Ebbie Date: 23 May 05 - 03:05 PM That brings up a subject I was discussing with some friends the other day. Since he is being charged with war crimes against his people, I'm assuming it will be Iraq that tries Saddam. So what if the Iraqi courts exonerate him/find him innocent on a technicality/release him for whatever reason and he goes back to living among the populace. Saddam has a lot of enemies in Iraq, no doubt, but he also has a lot of supporters. Both sides know from experience that there was less crime and that most people were safer under him, in other words, he 'made the trains run on time'. So let's say that he is reinstalled. QUESTION: Will the USA stand for it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Big Al Whittle Date: 23 May 05 - 02:54 PM I dunno...Saddam wasn't going to reliquish power any other way. I'm not going to be a complete prat like Norman Tebbit when he was insisting that the Yanks did a surgical strike on Libya and civilians couldn't possibly be killed. Obviously innocent people got killed and continue to get killed. It was a war. let's hope the Iraqis have a better prospect of happiness than they did under Saddam. If that makes us monsters because we voted for this government. So be it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: CarolC Date: 23 May 05 - 02:51 PM LOL, dianavan. Your post just made me think of something. Maybe the release of that photo is an attempt to soften up Saddam's image (engender sympathy) so they can re-install him back in power to help eliminate the insurgency and establish some order in Iraq. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: dianavan Date: 23 May 05 - 01:10 PM Aside from who was behind the image, I 'felt sorry' for the old coot caught in his underwear. My observation was based not on who he is, but that it was a man in his underwear splashed across the front page of a newspaper. By playing the sympathy card, I don't understand what purpose it served. As I have said before, I have no sympathy for Saddam but the photo made him appear as a 'normal' human being. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Stu Date: 23 May 05 - 12:55 PM "you don't like us, you don't like them" This isn't personal! The gung-ho crap is popular here too - just look at the circulation of The Sun compared to the broadsheets (where the tits are heard but never seen). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Big Al Whittle Date: 23 May 05 - 11:56 AM stig, you don't like us, you don't like them.....we're both a couple of stinkers. perhaps you had better present us with a list of your enthusiasms - who knows perhaps there a slim promontory of agreement on which we can meet in concord and harmony. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Stu Date: 23 May 05 - 11:12 AM It's a laugh the US Military were spouting concern about possible infringements of the Geneva Convention when they flushed it down the bog at Guantanamo Bay themselves, just like Saddam, the Taliban, China, Myanmar and countless other brutal regimes they wrongly claim the moral high ground against. The Sun is a worthless rag, and anyone with an ounce of intelligence ignores its gutter journalism. It would sell bundles in the States - the sort of 'for us or against us' gung-ho crap that seems to be popular amongst a large proportion of the populace there at the moment. You'd love it Martin! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Once Famous Date: 23 May 05 - 07:52 AM dianavan, all killers and murders have human faces. They also have human feces. So what? Just being human does not warrant sympathy if that is the only reason you are giving it. How can you feel sorry for someone that so violates the human spirt. That kind of compassion seems empty and self-serving. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Big Al Whittle Date: 23 May 05 - 04:34 AM One weird thing I heard was that the newsagency Al Jazeera, which has published al sorts of horrors, will not publish the pictures for fear of offending people. we are a long way from home on this one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Boab Date: 23 May 05 - 01:54 AM This thread has brought a bought a first-time event; I have visited the "Sun " website. Found all my prejudices borne out---although some of the items were blocked by my "parental control" software. Speaks volumes for the standards of the rag. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: freda underhill Date: 23 May 05 - 12:17 AM those who never survived have no story to tell. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: freda underhill Date: 23 May 05 - 12:12 AM being photographed in his underpants is nothing, compared to the atrocities he perpetrated. Interviewing Iraqis who had been tortured by Saddam's regime is an experience not to be forgotten. The physical mutilations are just one symptom - the physical weakness, emotional instability, grief and deep depression and insecurity will be with these people for ever. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: dianavan Date: 22 May 05 - 11:48 PM Just so nobody gets the wrong idea - I have no sympathy for Saddam but that particular photo definitely put a human face on the guy. If anything, I felt sympathy for the human being whose privacy was invaded. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Ron Davies Date: 22 May 05 - 11:21 PM My point was that publishing this photo is not in fact earth-shaking---nowhere near worth all the ink already spilled on it. Saddam's deeds, however, for many people, especially the families of quite a few Kurds, were as earth-shaking as anything can be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Peace Date: 22 May 05 - 10:35 PM LOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: GUEST,Skivee Date: 22 May 05 - 10:27 PM Okay, bruce. Rupert it is. I've been using the character name, Skivee, I.E. Long John Skivee, for so long that I no longer think of it as a synonym for underwear. I just realized that it might seem odd in a discussion about Saddam's dainties. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Peace Date: 22 May 05 - 10:07 PM Call him Rupert, OK? I get in enough shit as it is. Bruce |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: GUEST,Skivee Date: 22 May 05 - 09:04 PM I don't see the point of publishing the photos at all. they prove that Saddam wears ugly underwear. This is a crime that many of us have committed. The fact that his expectation of reasonable privacy in his cell has been violated, while correct, is pretty small potatoes. Since this guy is guilty much more serious offences, I think the world should be addressing those things. Release of these photos is just stupid, whoever arranged it. Noone is better informed by them, pro or con. Except that the availablilty of them seems to show that information control at the prison isn't as tight as it should be. Though I am no fan of the war, this kind of thing cheapens the sacrifices of Saddam's victims, the loses innocent victims of our bombing, and the sacrifices of our troops. But at least Murdoch sold more papers, and some bonehead made some chump change. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: GUEST, Ebbie Date: 22 May 05 - 07:48 PM No, jaze. I don't believe I have seen them in any other place. How does one pursue blogs? I've never bookmarked one and the only instances that I've gone into them was a few months ago- I think it was in regard to the Dan Rather/CBS thing. Ron Davies, in this particular case it seems to me you are missing the point of the 'seemliness' of publishing Saddam's photos. If I understand Joe Offer and Guest May 21, 5:00 AM, they are saying that the photos are NOT about Saddam, but about US. I agree with them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: jaze Date: 22 May 05 - 11:10 AM Ebbie, any luck finding those older photos on the internet? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Once Famous Date: 22 May 05 - 11:03 AM dianavan, I figured you would find sympathy for a cold-hard murderder dictator-torturer. Awwwwwwwww, poor Little Saddam in his underpants. Did you find sypathy for Idi Amin, Hitler, and Eichmann also? As for Greg F. you love to read what I write here and then get all incensed about it telling others not to read it. You are the saga of the story of a douche bag. Telling others not to read what I write I believe encourages them more! Thanks! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Greg F. Date: 22 May 05 - 10:17 AM ... you don't really think the Geneva convention applies to the war in Iraq, do you? Of course it doesn't for the U.S.- the BuShites made an official statement to that effect some years back- tho I suspect the A.D.D. afflicted BushApologists have conveniently 'forgotten' this. Have folks also forgotten when the BuShites released photos some time ago that contravened the Convention & outraged the civilized world the BuShite response was basically "Fu$k Off!!" ? The current BuShite mewling about violating a Convention they have consistently refuse to honor themselves or declared themselves exempt from would be amusing, were it not so absolutely disgusting. These people have NO honor, NO morality, No sense of justice whatever. And the people that make excuses for them...... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Peace Date: 21 May 05 - 05:16 PM The US has a history of doing this, though. I believe Ernesto 'Che' Guevara's picture was published too. The one with the bullet hole just above the top of his nose. (Yes, it was likely Bolivians, but I would think there might have been a few American 'special forces' advisors there at the time.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: CarolC Date: 21 May 05 - 04:55 PM You're certainly entitled to your opinion, Joe, but I have a very difficult time believing it. It's just all too convenient, and the result of these kinds of things always ends up being an increase in the size and scope of the insurgency. And I don't believe for a minute that Rupert Murdoch's reason for publishing those pictures was purely profit motive. That man is an empire builder if ever there was one. Without Murdoch and his FOX network's dumbing down of what passes for discourse and "news" here in the US, GWB would probably not be president right now. It's not just about money. It's also very much about power. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Joe Offer Date: 21 May 05 - 04:00 PM I don't think the Pentagon or the U.S. Government was involved in the release of the photos. There was money to be made in selling those photos, and that makes it almost inevitable that somebody is going to find a way to sell them. But I think that particular "somebody" should be found and punished. On the other hand, I don't think it's right for people to say it's OK to publish this sort of stuff because Saddam was a demon. As I recall, there were some horrible pictures published of Mussolini after his death. It's true that Mussolini was a monster - but that doesn't make it right for the "good guys" to display his body once he's dead. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: CarolC Date: 21 May 05 - 03:22 PM Although I agree with you, dianavan, that there was probably a huge profit motive on the part of the peope who published these photos, I don't think profit motive explains why the Pentagon allowed this material to be released to the press. I suspect other reasons for those "leaks". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Peace Date: 21 May 05 - 03:19 PM It is beneath our dignity to revel in this type of thing. I agree with Ron that giving him to the Kurds would be apt and fitting. I would gladly shoot the bastard myself. However, I refuse to see caged animals as something to make fun of. It demeans us all. Read Donne. "Ask not for whom . . . ". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Peace Date: 21 May 05 - 03:08 PM Just a couple of old friends getting together . . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Ron Davies Date: 21 May 05 - 02:24 PM Joe et al-- I'll have to part company with you on this one. No harm was done to Saddam by this, except to his dignity. A more appropriate response perhaps would be to turn him over to the Kurds who can probably devise a more fitting treatment. My sympathy for Saddam is limited, to say the least, as yours would probably be if you had seen some of the footage of his doings. As I said earlier, anybody outraged at this treatment was looking for an excuse to be outraged. None of this changes the fact that every death caused even indirectly by the war can be laid right at Bush's door. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: dianavan Date: 21 May 05 - 01:51 PM I actually felt sympathy for Saddam when I saw the photos. He just looked like a regular guy getting dressed. Sort of a harmless old coot that might have been a member of the family. I understand that it is an invasion of privacy but you don't really think the Geneva convention applies to the war in Iraq, do you? I'm not sure if there was any motive for publishing those photos other than monetary gain by someone. I don't think the photos were especially funny. Its another, "so what", as far as I'm concerned. It just goes to show what this war is all about. Its a dirty little war for profit. There is no moral high ground or American integrity. Its disgusting what people will do to make a buck. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: CarolC Date: 21 May 05 - 01:43 PM I think it was done purposely by people who want to stir up the insurgency even more than they already are, so the US will be justified in keeping its military forces in Iraq indefinitely. Same as that little leak about the koran being abused in Guantanamo. Keep things in a perpetual state of chaos and violence, and we won't ever have to get our military out of there. Same thing with Afghanistan. Everything makes sense when you put all the puzzle pieces together where they belong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Joe Offer Date: 21 May 05 - 01:36 PM Well, it appears the U.S. is taking action to find the reason for the leak, and that's appropriate. I suppose it's also appropriate to have cameras trained on Saddam to record every moment of his existence. But it is not appropriate to release those photos to the press, and there is no excuse for that happening. It was wrong for those photos to be released, and those who released them must be punished. There are those who rationalize and say that no harm was done because Saddam was an evil tyrant and all that, but they miss the point. We of the U.S. invaded Iraq because our leaders claimed the moral high ground, that we were right and just, and that Saddam was wrong and evil. If we claim the moral high ground, then we must take the moral high ground. Certainly, there will be individuals withour ranks who will commit abuses - but when those abuses happen, there must be no attempt to excuse or downplay them. If we truly have the moral upper ground, then our own abuses should cause us to be outraged at those among us who are responsible for the abuse. The Bush Administration claims that moral upper ground, but I don't believe it. I think that prison abuses like this one prove that we're wrong to be in Iraq. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Jack the Sailor Date: 21 May 05 - 01:33 PM That's about it. Jeri the Sun is entertaining its readership by laughing not just at Saddam but at Bush, and America. What is pathetic is Americans who are stupid enough to be willing to trade a day of laughter at Saddam for a month of the world laughing at them. The clown in this piece is not the man in the US-run prison. Saddam is helpless. Bush has all the power. The clown is George W. Bush. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Jeri Date: 21 May 05 - 10:06 AM I don't much hold with humiliation. It's not about how bad the humiliatee is, it's about how monstrous the humiliators look. And the entertainment value. The Sun now has a story entitled (prepare yourselves): By TOM NEWTON DUNN |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Ron Davies Date: 21 May 05 - 09:22 AM GUEST-- Don't get your knickers in a twist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: GUEST Date: 21 May 05 - 09:08 AM For the record, the photos appeared in Murdoch's rags both sides the pond--they were also published in the NY Post yesterday. And considering the Bush White House just sent Laura Bush to the Middle East to lecture everyone about women's rights, I believe it is quite possible that the publication of these photos will again raise the memories of the Abu Ghraib torture of prisoners and those photos of American women soldiers torturing and sexually humiliating Arab men. The fact that the photos are of Saddam won't matter. The association that will be made, particularly outside Iraq, will be that this is the same old shit from the US, nothing has changed since Abu Ghraib, etc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Ron Davies Date: 21 May 05 - 09:06 AM If people are outraged about this terrible assault on Saddam's dignity, they were just looking for a reason to be outraged. Obviously the Iraq invasion was wrong from the start, and all the deaths that stem from it can be laid right at Bush's door--but this "issue" is PC gone wild. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Ron Davies Date: 21 May 05 - 08:59 AM Hear, hear, Greg F. Particularly on this topic, which is literally and figuratively rank trivia. Or at least encourage "Martin" to go back to work, stop stealing his employer's time, and do something with his life (finally). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Greg F. Date: 21 May 05 - 08:45 AM Here's a posting from the past that is apparently in need of repetition: "The "problem" with "Martin Gibson" is not the fictitious personna or the real assole that's behind it, but with the mindless folks that rise to his bait and post to his threads. Listen up, people: if you want to be free of this asshole IGNORE HIM AND DON'T RESPOND TO HIS SHIT!! Simple, really." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: George Papavgeris Date: 21 May 05 - 05:07 AM GUEST, you're right of course. But Martin Gibbon is just yanking people's chain - he's into yanking. He knows of course that the action is indefensible, but he's just pushing people's buttons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: GUEST Date: 21 May 05 - 05:00 AM Speaking against this action, does not qualify anyone as a handwringer, or a radical liberal. Nor does it equate with "defending this terrorist." This is not about the terrorist and what he has done. We know what he has done and despise it. But to support this classless act by finding humor and entertainment in it lowers us, and no one else. This attempt at humiliation says little about the one pictured, but speaks volumes about those who allowed it to happen, and those who find it entertaining. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Boab Date: 21 May 05 - 02:59 AM Alba--ye're takin' risks; I wouldn't crap on it from forty feet up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Peace Date: 21 May 05 - 12:22 AM Incidentally, Rupert and I are not related. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: George Papavgeris Date: 21 May 05 - 12:10 AM Come on guys, Martin Gibbous is pulling your chain. He's been exposed as a touchy-feely pinko liberal himself, on the Michael Jackson thread... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Peace Date: 20 May 05 - 11:24 PM We have a few of them in Alberta, too. I always felt that if I ever bought one I'd want to have it put in a brown paper bag in case anyone saw me with it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Alba Date: 20 May 05 - 11:19 PM No Brucie...usually the "Girls" are wearing shoes and a thong....I have to disagree with Boab they are 96.5% naked on Page 3. To call the Sun a British Newspaper/Press is kind of like calling Rush Limbaugh a raging Democrat...The Sun is something that you would use only if you had run out of toilet tissue and has found a copy on the Bus and brought it Home to use till you can get to the Store:>) . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Peace Date: 20 May 05 - 11:14 PM You are being watched by Jupiter! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Once Famous Date: 20 May 05 - 11:10 PM I understand "The Sun" is extremely popular in England. It must be the nake women your "tolerant" society allows to be in everyday's paper. Sounds like a culture with it's head in a toilet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Peace Date: 20 May 05 - 11:10 PM Bags on the heads? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Boab Date: 20 May 05 - 11:08 PM Martin, it was published in a British "newspaper"--the "Sun". Turn to the next page and you'll find a 90% naked woman in every issue. The gutter rag is part of the empire of Rupert Murdoch [a "born-again Christian" ] who, believe it or not, is farther to the right than Fox News or the late Reagan. In fact something tells me that he has something to do with the aforementioned Fox news channel. A truly balanced gutter-paper would have had three in a row; Blair, Bush and Saddam. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Once Famous Date: 20 May 05 - 10:07 PM Uh, but wasn't it printed first in a Britich paper? Guest, at this point I don't think we care. Seeing Saddam humiliated was good for one days worth of laughs and that's about it. You hand wringers who get so bent out of shape and predict such doom because of it, not to mention your downplaying of the beheadings really qualifies you as complete shitheads. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: GUEST Date: 20 May 05 - 05:36 PM ...and then there is another way of looking at it. That far from showing a murdering bastard in Captivity... Some may think that the photographs show an old guy caught with his underwear on in a cell...and actually become sympathetic to him. I agree with Charlie Noble's post. Once again America comes off smelling bad...really stupid, stupid move on the part of the idiot that thought this one was either funny or acceptable... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: gnu Date: 20 May 05 - 05:17 PM Martin! Surely your second post is a fake? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Ebbie Date: 20 May 05 - 05:13 PM I don't understand. I know I saw two photos of Saddam in his briefs months ago. I don't know where on the Internet it was - although it was probably on somebody's blog. I told a friend about it at the time, and we agreed that the pictures were probably taken by the military or prison staff. At that time I never heard a word about it in the print media. Are we to believe that the government knew nothing about the existence of the photos until now? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: GUEST Date: 20 May 05 - 04:06 PM Yours is a double standard Martin. It's okay to shame and humiliate their guys, but it is an abomination when they do it to our guys. BTW, as to the American public being angry and shocked at the video of the beheadings--did you forget they were censored by the American press (better to protect our dainty sensibilities)? And did you forget that we didn't do jack shit about them? When I say Americans will stand for anything, that is exactly what I mean. If you just accept that these images are part of the present day reality of the "war on terror" than we as Americans will stand for anything--which we are, and have been since 9/11. Since 9/11, the Bush administration has brought the hammer down on both US and international jurisprudence, as they continue to do with the current "nuclear option" debate, the debate over the treatment of prisoners in the US and outside the US in the custody of the US government/military, etc. We shall reap what we are sowing now--history teaches that is always the case. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Peace Date: 20 May 05 - 03:58 PM Liberal has nothing to do with it, Martin. I am liberal--usually--and although I'd gladly shoot the piece of shit, I wouldn't advertise pictures which try to humiliate him because he just doesn't deserve the fuckin' press coverage. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: GUEST Date: 20 May 05 - 03:57 PM Martin can't you see the danger these pictures have put your country in? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Once Famous Date: 20 May 05 - 03:55 PM That's BS. We were angry and shocked at live videos of beheadings of prisinors. Showing a jerk in his briefs is hardly the same. They should show a picture of him jerking off even better. Anyone here who sticks up for this terrorist and inhumane dictator is got to be the worst type of radical liberal there can possibly be. Please take your PC attitude and shove it up your ass sideways. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: GUEST Date: 20 May 05 - 03:50 PM As a rule, the US military has been vociferously opposed to this sort of public humiliation and shaming of prisoners, for fear that the same will be done to ours, and the battle for hearts and mind at home will be lost. However, the "War on Terror" has proved that wrong. Americans now regularly accept photographs of prisoners being executed on the internet, or of "our guys" being humiliated and shamed on TV. So I suppose since Americans will stand for anything, the logic would only follow that the rest the world will to--which is a huge miscalculation, IMHO. It just shows we are tremendously ignorant about "the enemy" and ourselves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: GUEST Date: 20 May 05 - 03:42 PM He is going to sue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Peace Date: 20 May 05 - 03:41 PM By E&P Staff Published: May 20, 2005 2:15 PM ET NEW YORK What does the New York Post have to say about the controversy over its printing a photo of Saddam Hussein in his underwear? Here's a statement just released by the combative tabloid's spokesmen at Howard J. Rubenstein Associates: "Saddam Hussein is a genocidal maniac who tortured, gassed and killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis. The photographs published today by the New York Post show the U.S. military is treating him with a regard he never showed his own people." Meanwhile, President Bush said earlier today that he did not think photos of imprisoned Saddam Hussein clad only in his underwear would incite further anti-American violence in Iraq. "I don't think a photo inspires murderers," Bush said. The photos, published in British and American newspapers, prompted an angry U.S. military to launch an investigation; the Red Cross said the pictures may violate the Geneva Conventions. "These people are motivated by a vision of the world that is backward and barbaric," Bush told reporters. ----------------------------------------------------------------- E&P Staff (letters@editorandpublisher.com) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: gnu Date: 20 May 05 - 03:35 PM Martin! Surely your post is a fake? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: GUEST Date: 20 May 05 - 03:34 PM There is something deeply disturbing about people who enjoy watching others being publicly humiliated. Would you be laughing and saying "so what?" if George W. Bush was in the same position? Or an American major general prisoner of war, even? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Once Famous Date: 20 May 05 - 03:20 PM I think it's real and meant to humilate. Many are laughing. So what? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: gnu Date: 20 May 05 - 03:08 PM Surely this must be a fake. I cannot imagine incompetence of this magnitude. It is beyond stupidity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Mr Red Date: 20 May 05 - 03:04 PM caught with his pants down? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: GUEST Date: 20 May 05 - 02:49 PM And of course, there is no other possibility but that the photos were provided by US military intelligence, as they are the ones holding Saddam. I'm sure they will investigate the "leak" of the photos every bit as vigorously as they have the charges of other Geneva Conventions violations alleged to have been committed by the US since 9/11. Which is to say, not at all. Just like the "investigation" into Abu Ghraib, at Guantanamo, in Afghanistan (where numerous instances of prisoners being tortured and killed has been "proven" by the US military themselves, but the perpetrators of the crimes have been let off free, or with a slap on the wrist). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: GUEST Date: 20 May 05 - 02:45 PM I think you can actually narrow the motivations down to two possibilities: 1) low level bribery (it is the Sun, after all) or 2) high level political shenanigans (who is going to kick the US' ass for violating the Geneva Convention?) If it is the latter, I think it's crystal clear the US has no genuine interest in peace (much less understanding) with the Arab (much less the Muslim) world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 20 May 05 - 02:38 PM They say they got the pictures "from US military sources", as I understand. Now, if so, that's VERY enlightening! Could be a guard, or any of the guard's superiors, all the way up through the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff! Or, I suppose, even the Shrub, since he's the commander in chief. And of course the motivations of individuals at all those different levels could be different. The guard, for instance, could have been motivated by hate of Saddam; or hate of the Army; or by bribery; or who knows what other factor? The top levels' motivation, if they turned the pictures over, is probably going to be political. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: GUEST Date: 20 May 05 - 02:35 PM Yeah--so who is the idiot flak meister who dreamt up this one. Apparently, desecration of the Koran wasn't enough for the "military intelligence" boys. How do you spell Anti-American Riot? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Lepus Rex Date: 20 May 05 - 01:48 PM It's funny that The Sun claims the US military slipped them the pictures to "deal a blow to the resistance in Iraq." As if Iraqi insurgents are going to throw down their guns at the sight of Saddam in his shorts. "What?! Saddam has a... body beneath those olive drab pantsuits?! Noooooo! I surrender!" Humiliating the former ruler of Iraq, the only ruler most Iraqis have ever known, yeah, that's clever. That won't backfire at all. ---Lepus Rex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Peace Date: 20 May 05 - 01:36 PM You will be in trouble with Homeland Security, that's for sure. So, uh, how long have you been dressing this way? Echelon wants to know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: PoppaGator Date: 20 May 05 - 01:28 PM Am I going to have to switch to boxers now, lest I be accused of being a terrorist or dictator because of my prefrerence for tighties? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Peace Date: 20 May 05 - 01:17 PM He likely wears silk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: TheBigPinkLad Date: 20 May 05 - 01:08 PM I doubt they're St. Michael's. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam's response: Briefs! From: Charley Noble Date: 20 May 05 - 01:06 PM Only his lawyer cares and he/she will file appropriate legal action for this blatant violation of the Geneva Accords. More stupidity! Charley Noble |
|
Subject: BS: Saddam's resonse: Briefs! From: Once Famous Date: 20 May 05 - 11:51 AM Can anyone tell if Saddams's tighty whiteys are Fruit of the Loom or Jockey? It is important to these companys for market share research. |
|
Subject: The answer .Briefs or boxers?! From: Once Famous Date: 20 May 05 - 11:48 AM Can anyone tell if Saddam's briefs are Fruit of the Loom or Jockey? Their marketing departments are interested. |
