Is there anyone on the forum who thinks the publishing of these photos is justified?

Should we chuck the Geneva convention out the window?

I am no fan of Sadam but I am disgusted that the Sun should publish these photos. I hope somebody sues them.

The guy is probably going to hang for his crimes but to parade him around the world like a freak disgusts me.

Just had to get that off my chest!

Appears that Saddam is gonna sue them

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4567341.stm

good luck 2 him :thumbsup:

It's a deplorable breach of the Geneva Convention and also a perfect example of how the Coalition has shot itself in the foot throughout the whole Iraq campaign.

The Sun should be ashamed of itself - the self styled 'paper that supports our boys' has probably increased the hatred of Iraqi insurgents for the Coalition by publishing these pics, and the people who took the pictures needs their heads examining for holes for the same reason.

Pathetic, embarrassing and stupid.

Joe

Originally posted by JoePritchard
It's a deplorable breach of the Geneva Convention and also a perfect example of how the Coalition has shot itself in the foot throughout the whole Iraq campaign.

The Sun should be ashamed of itself - the self styled 'paper that supports our boys' has probably increased the hatred of Iraqi insurgents for the Coalition by publishing these pics, and the people who took the pictures needs their heads examining for holes for the same reason.

Pathetic, embarrassing and stupid.

Joe
Couldnt have put it better myself.

I see the pictures made front page of the New York Times as well. The question remains is the culprit British or American?

Originally posted by rtapper
Appears that Saddam is gonna sue them

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4567341.stm

good luck 2 him :thumbsup:

I'd sue them because the pictures were pants

I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that The Sun newspaper won't have to pay him anything. The case is unlikely to make it to court and if it does The Sun will win.

If Sadam wins someone can bump the thread and I'll admit I was wrong. :thumbsup:

I think the more humiliation he suffers the better. Why would anyone care about his feelings?

What photos they were. There was a picture of Saddam's bare arse and crouched behind him with lips puckered was George Galloway.:hihi: :hihi: :hihi:

Doesn't he deserve all the embarrassment he gets? after all the war crimes he's committed, killing thousands of innocent people, whats a few pictures of him in those big daddy underpants going to change?? :gag:

Maybe he's embarrassed cos he didn't have time to change into his calvin kleins.

he may deserve public hummiliation but that was not for the SUN to decide.. These photos are an embarrassment to the uk as it was a uk paper that ran them.
He will get his dues eventually but this is not the way to go about it.
I think he should sue the paper, but i think the money he gets from it should be put into rebuilding the communites in Iraq, not that he should donate it but it should be taken for that.

Originally posted by Lestat
Doesn't he deserve all the embarrassment he gets? after all the war crimes he's committed, killing thousands of innocent people, whats a few pictures of him in those big daddy underpants going to change?? :gag:

Maybe he's embarrassed cos he didn't have time to change into his calvin kleins.
You sure your not talking about George Bush.

Whether he deserves it or not isn't the point tho is it. The point is that it was REALLY REALLY UNHELPFUL, in all respects. Britain doesn't exist in a bubble - just look at the effect Newsnight had last week!

The Sun just degrades everyone - besides, who actually wanted or needed to see pics of him in his keks?

Yes it's unhelpful and stinks of hypocracy. It makes a mockery of his trial and everything we have been led to believe - WHAT WERE THEY THINKING OF. The Sun should not be allowed to get away with this. They are always causing racial friction and the so called Sun 'Newspaper' should be relegated to comic status, put it with the Beano & Dandy although the Beano & Dandy stories are more honest & believable!

Originally posted by JoePritchard

The Sun should be ashamed of itself

Pathetic, embarrassing and stupid.

Joe

lol :clap:

I bet everyone involved will all have trouble sleeping now :hihi:

Who could have thought that The Sun would do such a thing :P

While ever we have troops over there, and while ever he still has supporters over there, the Sun should just bear in mind the danger they are putting our troops in,Saddams sympathisers don't give a monkeys who they hurt and kill, life is cheap it seems to them, but I'm sure our lads can manage without the Sun antagonising the locals.

I think when The US are routinely torturing prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Iraq and Afghanistan the minor breaches of the geneva convention with these pictures are a bit of a side issue.

Saddam Hussien quite happily swam with the US sharks when they were best of friends, and Saddam was on "our" side.

Yes, the US are the new global imperialists, but they always need some locals who are willing to commit mass murder on their fellow countrymen. And also the US are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis but I'm not shedding any tears for Saddam Hussein.

Originally posted by Yodameister
And also the US are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis but I'm not shedding any tears for Saddam Hussein.

Not just Iraqis I hasten to add.

Oh, they wiped out most of the native Americans, y'know, the arrow shooting kind :(

Originally posted by venger

Oh, they wiped out most of the native Americans, y'know, the arrow shooting kind :(

Of course, it wasn't an exhaustive list.

Maybe the potential Saddams and Pinochets and what have you should take note, play with the Washington Hawks and this is how you will end up.

Originally posted by Yodameister
Of course, it wasn't an exhaustive list.


I agree totally :o

Originally posted by venger

"The National Security Strategy declared that the United States, alone, has the right to carry out 'preventive war' _ not pre-emotive _ using military force to eliminate a perceived threat, even if invented or imagined."

Sunday 7th September 2003
There' good reason to fear the U.S.
Toronto Star
Noam Chomsky




Well so long as we don't have a gung-ho Texan with blood stained hands on the button, then I will not mind so much :help:

Originally posted by Lostrider
Is there anyone on the forum who thinks the publishing of these photos is justified?

Should we chuck the Geneva convention out the window?

I am no fan of Sadam but I am disgusted that the Sun should publish these photos. I hope somebody sues them.

The guy is probably going to hang for his crimes but to parade him around the world like a freak disgusts me.

Just had to get that off my chest!

i look forward to the day when the sun publish pictures of the **** hanging with his eyes poked out....the **** deserves nothing less than humilation

What a marvelous use of free speech! This is what generations of soldiers have fought and died for! So that slimebag Rupert Murdoch could sell a few more papers, and get even richer. Whoever took these pictures should be tried by a military tribunal and sentenced to hard labor. And it would be appropriate if President Bush issued a formal apology.

For whatever good it'll do. I fear it's too late for that, as the Bush haters have already turned this into another Abu Ghraib.

I personally think Saddam Hussein is an evil, cold hearted, son of a b*tch who murdered, raped, and tortured thousands of his own people. If the worst thing that happens to that butcher is being embarrassed because someone took a few pictures showing him in his underwear, he should consider himself fortunate. Although something tells me Saddam isn't the type who embarrasses easily.

What in the world is wrong with the person or persons at that bird cage liner The Sun, who bought and published these pictures?

How are ridiculous photos of a half naked sociopath advancing the cause of journalism? Since when did it become appropriate for the general public to have information this trivial and sordid?

Originally posted by venger
Not just Iraqis I hasten to add.

Oh, they wiped out most of the native Americans, y'know, the arrow shooting kind :(

And venger, speaking as someone who actually IS part Native American, I would really appreciate it if you refrained from making comments about the history of a group of people you know nothing about.

I'm sure my 94 year old grandmother would be thrilled to hear herself described as an "arrow shooting kind" of indian. :rolleyes:

And George Bush is a Texan all right, a Texan by way of New Haven Connecticut, Harvard, Yale, and Kennebunkport Maine. Oh sure, he lived there. He was even Governor of the state. But make no mistake, he's no more a Texan than you are.

American society is much more complicated than it appears to non-Americans. Just because someone's lived in Texas, it doesn't make them a "cowboy". That's another American term that's used and abused. I'd like to know how many idiots who bandy the term "cowboy' about, have ever met a real one?

I'm betting none.

:) Sierra

perhaps pictures of gassed kurdish women and kids may be more appropiate..then do gooders might wake up and smell the coffee:rolleyes:

I like the thinking behind it, it will help break up the insurgency.... erm, will it? I think they are pretty miuch resigned to having Saddam back, they want their OWN power Bushy boy so its actually YOU and your troops they want to get rid of.

Oh Sierra, please don't blame New England for George Bush! We are really a decent people. The Yankee haters on this forum are free to open their moronic minds, even as you say they know nothing about the tribes. I have many friends who are of indian extraction who never shot an arrow.

TORTURE AT ABU GHRAIB
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
American soldiers brutalized Iraqis. How far up does the responsibility go?
Issue of 2004-05-10
Posted 2004-04-30

"In the era of Saddam Hussein, Abu Ghraib, twenty miles west of Baghdad, was one of the world’s most notorious prisons, with torture, weekly executions, and vile living conditions. As many as fifty thousand men and women—no accurate count is possible—were jammed into Abu Ghraib at one time, in twelve-by-twelve-foot cells that were little more than human holding pits."

So that has what exactly to do with this thread exactly?

America hater? hope that was not directed at me?

Bush hater? Well you are right there :clap:

"Arrow shooting kind", sorry if I offended you by making a light hearted comment to describe what I meant by NATIVE Americans.

American being much more complicated than it sounds, well I could not agree with you more.

In fact, I think it mostly hidden from the majority of how it really works.

I am currently looking at some of the work of Noam Chomsky, Profeesor of MIT.

Commonly reported as the most important intellectual alive.

So sorry to offend if at all I have, I am trying to use the most RELIABLE sources (not manufactured ones).

Kirky is right, Saddam should hang, but Bush should be next to him.

I am willing to quote if you have any real issues with my posting of this nature :)

Originally posted by buck
Oh Sierra, please don't blame New England for George Bush! We are really a decent people. The Yankee haters on this forum are free to open their moronic minds, even as you say they know nothing about the tribes. I have many friends who are of indian extraction who never shot an arrow.

Oh goodness no buck!

I most certainly wasn't blaming New England for Dubya! It's not what I meant at all. I was pointing out that there are those who use the words "cowboy' and "Texan" when describing George Bush (like those are dirty words), and they have no clue what those terms really mean.

Or the fact that since he was born and educated in New England, he's really neither a cowboy or a Texan.

Not all Native Americans fared poorly or were wiped out by the US government. My (mostly) Crow indian grandmother and her family actually did quite well. She and her sister and brother were able to attend college...courtesy of the US government because they were Native Americans. It's also unfair to apply today's standards of behavior to events that happened 100-150 years ago.

And venger, I can see that you are a Bush hater. And you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I don't have a problem with that.

I'm not a big fan of the guy myself, but sometimes the criticism of Bush and the US is vicious and unreasonable. Like our problems and bad foreign policy in the middle east only started when he was elected? I feel it's also hypocritical and very easy for other countries to sit back and criticize, and, as we say here, play Monday morning quarterback while someone else pays for everything, and takes all the risks.

Most of them don't have any answers either, but it doesn't stop them from running their mouths. And those that don't think their troops belong in Iraq? They should take that up with their own governments, not the US.

What on earth can I say about Abu Ghraib that hasn't already been said? Repeatedly?

Do I think you're an America hater? That's something only you know for sure.

I do thank you for your apology about the Native American comment. I always feel people can say whatever they like about me, but they better lay off my grandma! This is something I was (sometimes) teased about when I was a child. It hurt because there was nothing I could do about it, and because I loved my grandmother, she was the one person who never yelled or criticized, and things would have been unbearable without her being there for us kids.

I'm not a big Noam Chomsky fan. Although I won't deny he's a brilliant man.

http://www.chomsky.info/

And finally, I think this business with Saddam in his undies is just about selling papers and making money. Nothing more. Obviously, some people don't care who they hurt or upset, so long as they make a profit.

:) Sierra

Originally posted by Sierra
Obviously, some people don't care who they hurt or upset, so long as they make a profit.

:) Sierra

Sounds like George W. Bush to me!

Also pleased that you understand how the gutter press works also :)

Oh, sorry again I must add, but this time in a different context.

Sorry, I don't think you have sufficiently answered most of the points that I made.

As for not wiping out all of the native Americans, well I gues that makes it ok then :confused:

There are greater issues concerning the American Indians, but that is so off topic.

As for todays standards being comparable to 100-150 years ago, yes it is much worse now.

Before WWII, England was the main Superpower, and the U.S. afterwards.

Well I am pleased that you don't mind that I hate Bush. But then I guess I only hate him because he is a muderous, lying cheat who is obsessed with dominating the World.

And I too do not mind that you do not like Noam Chomsky.

Do you think he is wrong though?

Why are the criticisms of Bush unfounded then? please enlighten me.

As for criticising the US, well the citizens anyways. I applaud them (and other nations) for holding mass demonstrations all over the World BEFORE A WAR to show their true feelings.

Please tell me Why Iraq was a threat, and Saddam was suggested to be linked to Bin Laden ?

Nothing hypocritical at all about other nations criticising and sitting back from the war.

Just that there is a bigger picture and they not only can see it, they are also acting on what often upto 90% of there populations want. (unlike the US)

Now tell me, which sounds more democratic to you ?

Where did you say those weapons of mass destruction where ?

I do not blame you for, I don't think knowing what I am learning to believe is true.

As a nation, yours, like ours, consent is manufactured.

And that is exactly what Chomsky is talking about.

Like Chomsky or not, he is simply trying to expose the truth.

Thanks for the official website, I never knew that was there to be completely honest, so nice one.

:thumbsup:

Originally posted by kirky
perhaps pictures of gassed kurdish women and kids may be more appropiate..then do gooders might wake up and smell the coffee:rolleyes:

Hiya kirky,

With me it's pragmatism. No point in winding up the locals with pictures of Saddam if they're then going to go out peeved as hell and kill more people.

The war's over - the problem starts now with winning the peace.

Joe

Originally posted by JoePritchard


The war's over - the problem starts now with winning the peace.

Joe

Now I am really surprised that a man of your intellect actually believes that Joe :(

Mod. Note

Hi all,

Just a quick reminder to keep on subject - this is about the rights and wrongs of printing those pics, not US Foreign Policy decisions. If you want to fight that one out, create a thread.

Cheers,

Joe

Originally posted by venger
Now I am really surprised that a man of your intellect actually believes that Joe :(

Well,

Perhaps I'm not as smart a guy as you think I am, venger.

Not the place for the debate, especially as I've just posted the 'keep on subject' message.

But, all I'm saying is that we have to deal with the situation as it is now - in a post invasion, counter-insurgency capacity, and insulting captives is not the way to win hearts and minds.

Joe

Originally posted by JoePritchard
in a post invasion, counter-insurgency capacity, and insulting captives is not the way to win hearts and minds.

Joe

That is a fact.

But people still getting shocked by what The Sun puts on it's front page ?

Oh please!

Perhaps this simply makes it obvious that papers are only interested in sales of their own particular publication, any controversy only sells more papers, of course, as many people in the past have said, the SUN is not a "newspaper" it is a mag designed to apeal to a certain type of reader, anyone who is interested in the real issues of the world would never buy this paper.
It appeals only to the person who likes a girlie, pop music, celeb content, dare I say it, a typical dumbed down production for people who lack a brain!

Just the mere fact that it may stur up more hatred in Iraq makes the situation stupid.

He may have been a brutal dictator, but showing those shots of him just wasn't right..


It definately will add fuel to the 'still-burning-quite-nicely' fire.

The Sun, and the Mirror are tabloid rags, very similar to the National Enquirer which appear every week in American supermarkets. Their news value is abysmal, their sensation value is what sells them, and of course they sell like hotcakes. At least you have the Times, the Telegraph, and the Guardian for good papers to read.

If nothing else the publication of these pictures tallies nicely with the kind of political discourse Blair and Bush are so keen to put forward: that the world is divided into neatly into good and evil, with Saddam portrayed as a kind of Dick Dastardly figure that we're all supposed to hate and laugh at.

Picking and choosing which aspects of international law we feel like complying with won't wash, I'm afraid, seeing as the US and UK invaded a soveriegn country illegally, fighting a war that had no exit strategy with consequences that were so obviously disastrous (except to those in power).

These pictures are a side issue, though an admittedly disgusting one, that is entirely in keeping with the conduct of the West through this disgusting imperialist debacle.

Originally posted by Greenback
If nothing else the publication of these pictures tallies nicely with the kind of political discourse Blair and Bush are so keen to put forward: that the world is divided into neatly into good and evil, with Saddam portrayed as a kind of Dick Dastardly figure that we're all supposed to hate and laugh at.

Picking and choosing which aspects of international law we feel like complying with won't wash, I'm afraid, seeing as the US and UK invaded a soveriegn country illegally, fighting a war that had no exit strategy with consequences that were so obviously disastrous (except to those in power).

These pictures are a side issue, though an admittedly disgusting one, that is entirely in keeping with the conduct of the West through this disgusting imperialist debacle.

I completely agree, but watch out now, you run the risk of going off thread.

Not that you are of course :(

I support the idea of a 'free' press [although I realise that the 'reality' is the product of somebody's beautiful imagination], nevertheless, the publication of these pathetic photographs demonstrates the ugliness, nastiness and vulgarity with which the Sun is infamously associated.

More sophisticated diplomats , with an appreciation of the grudges held in the collective Arab consciousness concerning perceived British betrayals, going back to the wretched Balfour Declaration, might have persuaded this typical Arab despot to be a good boy in the early 1990s. In the 'real' world of shifting geo-political alliances, it was 'right' for Britain to arm Saddam. There is the 'issue' of his, often horrifying, treatment of his own people, but that is none of our business, as dear old Enoch Powell said at the time of the first, costly international intervention. Saddam's secular regime served British interests well, and his role as 'policeman' of the Gulf is now forgotten. Had the relationship been properly nurtured, the invasion of Kuwait might never have happened.

'It is better to be an enemy of the British than to be a friend. The British always stab their friends in the back', is a popular saying throughout the Arab world. Can we blame them?

Now, as Greenback suggests, we have the spectacle of a former ally ridden, saddled and bridled through the pages of the vilest tabloids, depicted as the personification of all 'evil'. The wise Greenback's comparison of Saddam to 'Dick Dastardly' would be highly amusing, were it not so tragic. In the world-view of the Neo Conservative [a million miles from my own, Burkean, Paleo Conservatism] and Nu-Labour alliance, complicated political situations are spoken of in black and white terms, and reductionist, unitary explanations [Bush's 'Well, he did try to kill my Dad'...] offered to the public.

What a pantomime world we live in. One day, General Pinochet is the hero who staunchly supported British interests at a time when her sovereign territory was invaded. The next, he is viewed on par with Hitler. One day, an admittedly charmless and egomaniacal Arab despot is widely lauded as 'the Policeman of the Gulf', armed, and valued as a bulwark against Islamic Fundamentalism. The next, he is accused of harbouring a hostile nuclear arsenal, being in league with 'the enemy' all along, his country is invaded and he is paraded in public as an enemy of 'civilisation'.

Should all Anglophiles be on their guard? Saddam made the terrible mistake of admitting to a penchant for Quality Street chocolates. Who is next? Lloyd Grossman?

Originally posted by timo

Should all Anglophiles be on their guard? Saddam made the terrible mistake of admitting to a penchant for Quality Street chocolates. Who is next? Lloyd Grossman?

*prays* let it be lloyd grossman, let it be lloyd grossman

Considering the Sun sells so many papers, will anyone admit to reading it on a daily basis? If so, did you buy the 'sadamn' issue, and why?

LOL. Well, dear old Lloyd is fanatical about all things British, and we do have a reputation [as many Arabs will attest] for knifing our friends. Your amusing posting, Kathythebean, indicates that Lloyd's love for Britain is not wholly reciprocated by the public. Watch out, host of 'Master Chef', hide your 'weapon of mass destruction'.

I just think he looks a little creepy. The kind of man to walk around arms outstretched saying 'come here little girl, I'm not going to hurt you'..

Actually, timo, his name is Loyd now -

www.loydgrossmansauces.com

Maybe he thinks he'll be more hip to the kids if he loses an 'L'? I would not knife (L)loyd though, I would just drown him in a vat of his own sauces :)

*Edit - mods apologies for being so horrifically off topic. What can I say? I don't like mondays?