BS: Saddam's response: Briefs!

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 ([e-mail])

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.