BS: Saddam's response: Briefs!

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 10:35 PM

LOL

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Peace
Date: 24 May 05 - 11:33 PM

They tried that. Missed it seems.

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.