Talk about weapons of mass destruction… :rolleyes:
Why would anyone want to see that fellow in his underwear?
We were all born with less. I’m still trying to find the “outrage” in all of this.
[sub]I expected to see this thread sooner.[/sub]
With everything that guy did we all knew he had to have some big cojones.
I never figured him for a tighty whitie guy though, I thought he’d go for boxers.
ParentalAdvisory: Releasing humiliating photos of Prisoners of War is, indeed, a violation of the Geneva Convention. The only question is if we consider Saddam a POW or not.
Yeah, that’ll really go a long way to convincing the world we are a tolerant, open, and helpful nation. I’m sure the Iraqis were really pleased to hear such beliefs. I suppose it’s the White Man’s Burden to educate and enlighten and tame these wild desert savages? :rolls eyes:
I’m not sure it’s entirely healthy to my mind to sit around contemplating Saddam’s underwear, but I wonder if he had any say in the selection. I mean, it’s probably just whatever the US military gave him, right?
In any event, no good can come of this, unless maybe sales happen to go up for Fruit of the Loom.
Am I the only one who, when I first saw the picture, started singing “I can change” a la South Park?
I’m sure there’s a Psychology doctorate in why I felt the need to click on a link that showed me a picture of Saddam Hussein in his underpants.
I know that I’ve been a dirty little bastard
I like to kill, I like to mate, I like to sing
But it’s okay 'cos I can change
Maybe this is better suited for the pit thread (I presume there is one), but I do wonder what the magazines that published the photos were thinking. Saddam’s eventual trial is going to be a total circus anyway, he’s going to try to turn it into a platform for himself. The last thing you want to do is give him more things to go on about and to create more extenuating circumstances.
Bush was not talking about the Iraqis. He was talking about the Islamic fundamentalists, who slit their daughter’s throats when they are raped and refuse to let girls leave a burning school because they’re not in full burqa regalia.
Ya know, I almost posted a disclaimer that I didn’t actually give any thought to Saddam in his undies until I saw the picture but I hoped that no one would actually make that accusation. But I should have known better.
Seriously, I think it is rather stupid of whoever released the pics and those who published them. Prisoner or not that’s just unecessary and insulting, and if it were any one else, like American prisoners of war, everyone would be outraged. The news media that don’t print the actual pictures but think it’s okay to print pictures of people looking at the pictures because they think it absolves them of some wrong doing are even worse.
I think we all know publishing photographs of Prisoners of War is against the Geneva Convention, but I wasn’t aware that the Geneva convention typically had any weight in the civil law of a State’s government. I mean, if I was a soldier in Iraq and I violated the Geneva convention by torturing a POW, I can see how I could theoretically be prosecuted by an international court (the only courts I’m aware of that explicitly prosecute based on international law, while yes a treaty like the Geneva Convention does theoretically count as “law” in the United States, soldiers aren’t convicted or punished on the basis of that law within the U.S. military, but rather they are convicted and punished on the basis of U.S. military code which prohibits most of the things the GC prohibits) I don’t see what basis there would be for a civil suit against me.
You guys are wondering why a tabloid published that photo? Simple. $$$.
Freedom of the press as a counterfoil to the tyranny of the government is nothing more than allowing both extremes, without curtailing the excess of both.
He wasn’t? The article said he was talking about “the insurgents”. Which would mean for the most part, Iraqis. Who, for the most part I’m betting, are currently more motivated by the fact that their country’s been invaded than by any particular ideology.
And for the record, the government supported police who refused to let the girls leave a burning building were in Saudi Arabia. Ya know…our allies? Ruled by the guy Bush was holding hands with the other week? I wonder if he got around to talking about backward and barbaric ideology with Prince Abdullah.
Sorry, off topic. But I just had to mention that.
Some talk show guy…something Bradshaw something… reported (is that the right word for a talk show?) that Al-Jazeera refused to run the Saddam undie pictures because they were “too offensive” and noting that Al-Jazeera ran the beheading videos.
Is that true?