Seen the hypocritical outcry in the USA when in the beginning of the invasion/occupation of the sovereign nation Iraq the Iraqy TV, Al Jazeera and other channels brought coverage of a few US soldiers in custody of the Iraqy government, I have some questions about the way the arrest of Sadam Hussein is covered.
You can see him being humiliated whenever you turn on your TV.
What is the difference between this behaviour and the showing of the pictures of US soldiers?
Why shouldn’t US soldiers taken prisoner while invading a sovereign nation not be showed on the national TV and outside that country while nobody now makes a move to expose this procedure being applied to a man who was the ruler of that nation until the USA invaded it?
For the sake of the argument let us leave out of the discussion the humiliating coverage and report about the murder on his two sons by the US army and other events where Iraqis were showed as hunting loot and where no media refrained or was ordered to refrain from bringing the pictures.
And please take notice that I don’t see Hussein as a “prisoner of war” but as someone taken prisoner by colonizers.
You can read my idea about this event on a now moved topic that seems to be placed on the “pointless stuff” board.
Salaam. A
It is relevant because the people of Iraq would have reason to be skeptical of claims that Saddam was captured if those claims were not supported by visual evidence. By showing Saddam in custody it leaves no doubt that he is no longer on the loose.
Saddam is a key figure. While video of his capture is kind of propaganda, it is not the main purpose.
Well, the official U.S. argument is that the footage is not shown on state TV, so it’s OK. I guess if it appears on PBS, you’re correct.
Surely you could come up with a better demonstration of U.S. hypocrisy than this. What about diplomatically kissing the world’s greatest abuser of human rights, China, full on the lips? For God’s sake, Saddam murdered people, but he didn’t sell their organs.
If, in fact the same people who approved the images of Saddam for distribution are the same ones who objected to images of captured US soldieers being displayed, then of course it is hyprocritical and there is no difference. It would help, however if the OP would state which aspects of the images displayed consitute ‘humiliation’ by the US.
Firstly, I’m sure the OP would agree that some sort of images of Saddam would have to be displayed publicly, lest the US be accused of faking his capture. Secondly, the man, was after all, found under circumstances (dirty, unshaven and pulled from a hole in the ground), in which IMO it would allmost impossible for any images made of Saddam post-capture to not appear humiliating.
I am also very interested why the OP continues his long-standing record of support for one of the most odious dictators of modern times. Yes or no: does the OP argue that Saddam should still be in power in Iraq?
Wekll, my topic named “congratulations” and partially posted here to avoid coments like these “sadam lover” and “US hater” was seen as worhtless/pointless by the Moderator and moved.
So I’m so sorry, but I’m not going to repeat what I said in that OP. You can look it up if it is still around.
So what are we debating here, Aldebaran? Is this supposed to be a debate over whether or not you should have to explain yourself or support your assertions?
Aldebaran, as a practicing Muslim, why aren’t you calling for Saddam’s death? He is an apostate, after all and doesn’t the Koran mandate death for apostates?
Is it necessary for CNN to continue showing the examinations of Saddam? The flashlight and tongue depressor in the mouth, the sifting through his hair? I think that might reasonably approximate “humiliation.”
Sorry, but my first reaction on the news of him being found was:
It can for the same money be one of his doubles. The Iraqis themselves didn’t see the differences between Hussein and his doubles and the same counts for his sons and God knows how many of the regime.
So what is the point of showing a man from which averybody knows it isn’t certain if that is the real one or not?
And if you don’t find it humiliating showing a man while he is examined by a doctor (wearing gloves) like one would examine a horse before buying it then maybe you still live in the Good Old Days of Slavery.
There was no such covering necessary at all. Bringing out the results of blood and DNA testing would have done exactly the same job.
The only reason for this inhumane display was propaganda.
Just like the only reason for showing those US soldiers by Iraq was propaganda.
Death penalty for apostasy is not part of the Message of Al Qur’an.
Not every practicing Muslim is a bloodthirsty medieval creature, which your post seems to imply.
Not every practicing Muslim who follows and interpretation of Shari’a Law that advocates death penalty for apostasy is in agreement with that interpretation.
Saddam was not even considered to be a practicing Muslim.
And a bit of information on a sidenote: point 4 gives the reason why among others friend Bin Laden was calling for his death. Which makes at the same time the whole circus about “connection” between both killers extremely laughable for those who are informed.
Salaam. A
For the last time, I moved your thread to MPSIMS because it wasn’t a debate. If you wish a thread to remain in Great Debates, it must be in the form of a debate.
Clear enough? :rolleyes:
Look, I asked a simple question: what did you find humiliating in the images? You could have answered that question just as effectively without all the editorializing. That sort of thing is prcisely why many people on this board find you so very, very obnoxious.
Now, as to your answer, apparently you are unaware that in this day and age American, and I daresay European doctors as well, routinely carry out examinations wearing protective gloves, to reduce the achance of exposure to bloodborne pathogens. If you wish to argue that showing Saddam being examined medically at all is in some way inherently ‘humiliating’, fine, but the wearing of gloves is bog-standard medical procedure and is NOT inherently humiliating to any rational person.
Asked and answered, in my first post. So what is the debate here?
I see you haven’t changed…another inflamatory thread by the Master.
From Aldebaran
Lets see if we can take this one step at a time. Was the US outraged when AJ paraded US soldiers (and bodies) on TV? Yes, it was. Very human reaction. Are you and the SH loyalist equally outraged to see SH humiliated? I’m sure you are…very human reaction again. No one likes to see such things from the folks on THEIR side. Why you must excuse YOUR side (ya, I know…you dn’t claim to BE on SH side Alde…just bare with me) while demonizing the US’s side is beyond me. Is it hypocritical? Ya, it is…welcome to the human species.
From Aldebaran
I’d say this is a bad arguement on your part. A better arguement would have been, whats the difference between US media outlets showing Iraqi prisoners and dead as opposed to AJ showing US prisoners and dead.
SH was a head of state. He was a mass murderer. He was head of a defeated power, that was on the run for several months. At least in part his forces continue to fight in the field. His very existance was still causing wide spread fear and/or nervousness in Iraq. The Iraqi people NEEDED to be shown, in no uncertain terms, that SH had in fact been captured.
All of these things contribute to his being shown off like a prize…because he WAS a prize. If he didnt want to be humiliated he should have taken his pistol and blown his brains out…as he has encouraged his followers to do (i.e. fight to the death, blah blah blah). He didn’t…so he has to take what he gets. I feel militantly unsympathetic to the man.
From Aldebaran
Still trying to dance to this toon? Its horseshit and you know it. Unlike their daddy, SH son’s chose to fight it out…and were killed. Bummer for them. Again, I feel vast levels of unsympathy for these two pieces of shit, though perhaps a bit more respect that they chose to go down in a blaze of fire instead of surrender meekly. But you are full of it if you say they were ‘murdered’…they were killed while fighting. THere is a vast difference between the two, as you well know. I think you used ‘murder’ to do what you do best…to try to inflame. Unfortunately, it just makes you look like a fool, as we all know the story there.
From Aldebaran
I’d think you were in denial, but personally I think this statement is meant to be provocative and you don’t actually believe a word of it. However, I’ll respond as if I thought you were totally clueless and/or in denial. Colonizers? Where is the US colony? How many US colonialists have landed in Iraq so far? Where are the perminent settlements? Has the US colonial government taken effect yet?
SH not a prisoner of war, ehe? Are you in denial that there WAS a war? Whether you think the war was legal or not, it certainly happened. The US is certainly occupying Iraq. There for SH IS in fact a prisoner of war…Q.E.D. To say anything else, again, makes you sound like a fool. Personally, I think you only said it to be provocative, as I said earlier, but its still not the smartest thing to say.
Well, thats it for you ‘OP’…there isn’t anything else there. So, cutting out all the usual US bashing stuff and total exagerations and hand waving, my answer to you is…yes, its hypocritical, just like its hypocritical for the Arab world to say the same things about the US (i.e. outrage at the US showing dead or captured Iraqi’s, etc). Again…welcome to the human species.
Isn’t there a Quran that Saddam had printed with his blood? I bet if that survived, they could use it to compare DNA between captured Saddam and real Saddam.
Of course, conspiracy theorists are never going to beleive that is the real Saddam no matter what. (“Bush faked the results to win 2004!!”) Ugh.