Not speaking for the Western world, Europe or even Scandinavia but only myself, I say that these kinds of posts make it difficult to agree with your original point. I still do though, but you might want to consider easing up on the Omnilingual Master of the Messageboards act;)
Well, if one finds a medical exam humiliating, what about showing a surgery on national television? That happens all the time, just tune into the Discovery Channel, TLC, et al.
I don’t think I can follow this comment. What is wrong by stating a fact? Do you think when one speaks only English one has acces to an international media that goes beyond this language and the culture it represents?
Yes there are translations. But they are limited and not even always accurate.
Salaam. A
I hate to see the OP once again avoid discussion of the topic he himself has raised by squabbling over irrelevant side issues, but I couldn’t let this one go. Naming what country you are in is not “posting (your) address on the Internet”. Here, I’ll give an example: I am currently in Houston, Texas, USA. Now, what, if anything, can anyone do with that information? Please, Aldebaran, don’t be so absurd as to claim that you are in some sort of danger from the posters on this board if you would announce the mere name of the country in which you reside.
Nevertheless, I agree with the other posters who have stated that the OP’s location is not an issue here. The OP’s poor credibility mostly has to do with his irrational hostility toward anyone who questions his assertions, and his clear preference for heckling and baiting other posters rather than discussing the issues he claims to be interested in.
And a lighter note.
Don’t people give their consent before they are filmed undergoing surgery? Do we think saddam signed a contract?
Cheers.
Don’t see anything up there now, though. This sort of unfocused ranting, denial and obfuscation is old news, ranking somewhere behind the sins of pit bulls and Lucky Dogs. 
It’s somewhat helpful though as a reminder of a congealed mindset which is far from unique to the OP, though others are more honest in responding to criticism.
I don’t care where he’s from. Given the anonymity of the Net, it’s as likely that he’s a doughnut shop employee in Teaneck, New Jersey as it is that he’s a cosmopolitan Master of Many Tongues from Brussels.
My betting’s on Teaneck.
Aldebaran, I’m the one who pointed out that where you are from and who you are doesn’t matter; I then tried to replace the rather simplistic and unflattering estimate made about your person with something of rather more depth, an assessment by the way that I don’t think is incorrect – or pejorative, for that matter. Not intended as any kind of insult.
As for Saddam’s beard, if you have any information you’d like to share (like news reports) please do, but I fail to see how you can otherwise claim that getting rid of his grotty disguise is taken (earnestly) by any populations to mean he is being degraded. Some people will jump to that conclusion, but in my considerable exeperience they do so rather irrationally, latching on to something like that.
I don’t think they showed Saddam being shaved, so that’s not the same situation as when he looked stoned and had some guy picking through his hair in front of the world. For all we know, his captors consulted him on how he wanted to be groomed, or perhaps they even gave him a safety razor! They probably didn’t, but either way Saddam is not the kind of Arab who sported a beard or required it as a sign of wisdom, piety, and authority; and since everyone knows what Saddam looks like, everyone knows he didn’t wear a beard. If this had been someone who has sported a beard all his life, or some average unknown who had been stripped of his beard, I can understand how it could be interpreted as an affront to Arab customs, but that still does not appear to be the case. With all the disquieting and even disturbing things there are about the Iraq war, you can find much better material than that.
Abe,
Yes I know that you - and others - tried to temper the off-topic comments by giving your opinion on the posts.
As for your other comment: You seem to have misunderstood both my posts on that matter.
First the one in which I explained why such a thing would be seen as I described by a particular branch of Muslims and Arabs.
On whihc you replied that you can’t see why that is
On which I replied that it nevertheless is the case
On which you replied here above that you still can’t see why it is.
Maybe you could go read that first post again. It has nothing to do with the customs of Hussein (if he used to wear a beard or not) but how shaving a beard by an enemy is percieved by the groups I describe = how they will see this, even if it is known that Hussein didn’t use to have a beard. He had one now and the enemy shaved in and they see that as how they are used to see such action.
I gave that example for underscoring my assertion that the US has no idea of how the whole broadcasting is percieved in the MENA and in Muslim communities all over the world.
This foolish attempt to “shock” the audience and the claim of the so called “specialists” that it shall make them “demystify” the leaders of Islamic communities or nations is as ridiculous as can be and only shows their complete ignorance about their target audience.
The result is not and shall not be what they in their ignorance and cowboyism hoped for. On the contrary.
That is what I tried to point out by giving merely example of how this simple “being shaved” is percieved by certain groups who take it for “being shaved by the enemy”
Others find many other reasons to be disgusted, if they like Hussein or not.
Salaam. A
Sorry, forgot to ask. Don’t you think that this comment of yours is very directly referring to my origin and background?
I mean: would you have posted such comment if I said I was European (which I am half, because of my late mother)?
That is what I meant with “The question is why you (you are of course not the only one) find the need to bring what I post here in relation to my person let be to my origin.”
Maybve I could open a topic on that, because it could bring some interesting debate about how people are influenced by ideas that even lead to prejudice in some cases, simply because they “know” where someone is born or lives.
Salaam. A
I reaaaaaallly don’t think you of all people want to open a thread on “how people are influenced by ideas that even lead to prejudice in some cases, simply because they ‘know’ where someone is born or lives.”
I’m just saying.
Of course I do.
Salaam. A
And since I’m in a bad day today…
Uh, I think the current record-holder is the now-departed december, with a total somewhere in the 'teens (can’t be bothered to count them all, though).
If these people, whoever they are, are predisposed to find the US “the enemy”, then what difference does it make what the US shows or doesn’t show on TV? The US is the enemy, so these people will always find fault in anything the US does, will they not? If they believe the US is deliberately trying to insult them by showing footage of Saddam being shaved, could it not be that it is their misunderstanding of why the footage is being shown?
Thus, in regards to these undefined ‘groups’ you speak of, IMO, it is completely irrelevant whether the US releases tape of Saddam being medically examined, being shaved, being treated like a visiting head of state, or being dressed up in tutu and told to sing “I’m a Little Teapot”. They are not upset with the US because they saw the beard of a monstrous dictator being shaved on TV, they are upset with the US because it invaded Iraq in the first place, or because it supports Israel, or becasue they feel that the US is an imperialist power. Saddam’s beard, I’ll say again, is an irrelevance.
So is it, or isn’t it? 
Since you maintain that it is (and I, being quadrilingual and having lived in three countries can absolutely believe that it could be), would you agree that this perception flies in the face of any logic or rational thought, or not? Would the perceivers be aware of this, and ignore it, or justify the perception by some other means? I’ve seen similar perceptional constructs while living abroad (and while living in the US, for that matter, althoug not with the same startling frequency), and I wonder if you could fill me in on just how you think this works for people.
Thanks,
Irae
I think Saddam surrendering without a shot wound up emasculating himself in a more effective way than any American shaving his beard.
Not in the least. Why do you think the culture and/or religion of others “flies in the face of any logic and rational thought”? Because it isn’t your culture or religion it has to be dismissed as "irrational and “illogic”?
Why? What is your justification for this reasoning?
In my opinion everyone is entitled to have his own culture and religion and has the right to live according this culture and religion. Which includes the right to be insulted by the deeds of strangers who completely disrespect that culture and religion. The more when those strangers are invaders and occupyers of a a sovereign nation and thus seen as the enemy by those who look at that nation and its citizens as being part of their culture and religion.
People don’t need to “be aware” of anything foreigners do when invading a sovereign nation that is part of their region and/or part of their culture/religion or its sphere of influence.
People don’t need to “justify” their culture and/or religion by any means to those who aren’t part of it.
Does who are there as strangers should be aware of the sensitivities of the culture and religion of those who are at home there or who feel connected with those who are at home there.
When I am in a nation that isn’t my homeland, I don’t expect others to know what my culture is. I respect theirs because that is their right.
I don’t know if you reason the same way when you leave your country to visit an other.
Salaam. A
Of course. If it indeed happened that way, which nobody but those present can be really informed about.
(This has however nothing to do with the point that is currently discussed here about “being shaved by the enemy”).
And if you aren’t informed about it already: Many people claim that Hussein must have been drugged.
Salaam. A
Well I believe you’re arguing that by shaving Saddam, the American’s deeply humiliated him in public. The humiliation being critical to this discussion.
However the manner of his surrender, as opposed to his sons, seems significantly more humiliating; meekly giving up to the Americans. Since the report of his capture could easily be broadcast without pictures (no recourse to the Geneva conventions) the humiliation would have remain the same. This due to the fact that it was the lack of action on Saddam’s part that bestowed the humiliation.
So he would’ve been humiliated either way. Personally, I think the manner of capture is more humiliating.
I am also wildly un-surprised that some people believe he was drugged, or zapped with mind controlling rays, or beguiled by some dewy eyed vision, or…
Especially when such explanations/justifications are ignored. (Hint: we’re getting into the realm of irony again. You don’t want to start a thread on this topic either.)
I wouldn’t bother with the “drugged” Saddam theory when there are more attractive options for the easily deluded. For instance, how about this one: the guy who was captured was really a pseudo-Saddam-double, and we faked the DNA test using tiny Saddam-bits harvested from one of his palaces…
I still like my dewy eyed vixen idea.