Saddam caught with his kecks down

The Dark Elf said:
journalistic integrity? That went out with the BBC Micro :D


---

Anyway what gets me is, everyone that is going ape over this dictator being shown in the skiddies.. but where was the uproar about Abi Titmuss giving John Leslie a blowjob while some black chick had her way with her? Or Jordan's many slipups, or those candid shots of celebs with their boobies out.

Funny how the same people who whine about this, didn't say anything against the others.. *shrugs*
Click to expand...


If Saddam appeared in every men's magazine in his underwear, flaunting his body and having sex with stupid football players and moronic boyband members, got caught with his pants around his ankles whilst hobbling out of a nightclub at 3 in the morning completely drunk and put on the front page of the Sun, i can understand your argument....but he has not.

I am disgusting by this for two reasons, one it will cause violence and more terrorists to blow themselves up, killing more innocent people, and two, even though Saddam wasn't very civilised, we in the western world are supposed to be.
 
he shouldnt have the right to sue.

were letting him sue over some photos, jesus.

next we'll be giving him $20,000 to go to las vegas and have a grand time. :/
 
KoreBolteR said:
he shouldnt have the right to sue.

were letting him sue over some photos, jesus.

next we'll be giving him $20,000 to go to las vegas and have a grand time. :/
Click to expand...

If it ****s up the Sun I reckon he should have the right to do a lot of things.

The Sun is more evil than Saddam.
 
KoreBolteR said:
he shouldnt have the right to sue.

were letting him sue over some photos, jesus.

next we'll be giving him $20,000 to go to las vegas and have a grand time. :/
Click to expand...


If you were a prisoner in jail, would you really want members of the press coming round and taking pictures of you whilst you're in your underwear?
 
Razor said:
If you were a prisoner in jail, would you really want members of the press coming round and taking pictures of you whilst you're in your underwear?
Click to expand...

if you killed millions.. should you live in peace?
 
Do you agree with the conditions prescribed by the Geneva convention?

Besides it's exactly this kind of thing that causes hatred towards the USA (granted, the government aren't directly responsible for these pictures - but that's not how the Islamic world will see it).

This causes more harm than good.

In fact I can see absolutely no good coming out of seeing Saddam in his underwear.
 
kirovman said:
Do you agree with the conditions prescribed by the Geneva convention?

Besides it's exactly this kind of thing that causes hatred towards the USA (granted, the government aren't directly responsible for these pictures - but that's not how the Islamic world will see it).

This causes more harm than good.

In fact I can see absolutely no good coming out of seeing Saddam in his underwear.
Click to expand...

The Sun says that it would demoralise insurgants.

My view is that the Geneva Convention should be respected at all times. No matter what the the POW has done. I wouldn't like this to happen to any captured British, so I don't want it this to happen to any captured enemies.
 
Feath said:
The Sun says that it would demoralise insurgants.
Click to expand...


The Sun is full of shit...

Good thing that they don't think page3 demoralises the insurgents...doubt it would matter if it did to them...

Tabloid newspapers are edited by scum who would sell sextapes of their own grandma's if it ment a few extra copies sold...dirty scum.

And just because Saddam Hussein is a bad guy doesn't mean he isn't worthy of the same laws that govern everyone else. He is a prisoner of war and as such is governed by the Geneva convention, which the Sun newspaper has knowingly violated and should be punished for.

My only hope that The Sun newspaper are the only ones who have to live with the consequences of their stupid, ignorant mistake.
 
Ok , so she`s an attractive woman,but she still edits the sun.
So, "edited by scum who would sell sextapes of their own grandma's if it ment a few extra copies sold...dirty scum." still applies.
 
Feath said:
Does Michael Jackson have ginger hair?
Click to expand...

He could tomorrow. I mean, he changed about everything you can change on your body, so whats stopping him from changing hair colour?
 
Dag said:
He could tomorrow. I mean, he changed about everything you can change on your body, so whats stopping him from changing hair colour?
Click to expand...

Common sense, I mean ginger.

When I was born the first thing my mam asked was "Is he ginger?".
 
Razor said:
It doesn't matter whether the editor is a man or a woman, they're still scum who should be punished. I just hope that she is dealt with in the same way that that other piece of crap, Pierce Morgan was dealth with.
Click to expand...

I just thought that some people may have been surprised that she was a woman. That's all.
 
Razor said:
If Saddam appeared in every men's magazine in his underwear, flaunting his body and having sex with stupid football players and moronic boyband members, got caught with his pants around his ankles whilst hobbling out of a nightclub at 3 in the morning completely drunk and put on the front page of the Sun, i can understand your argument....but he has not.

I am disgusting by this for two reasons, one it will cause violence and more terrorists to blow themselves up, killing more innocent people, and two, even though Saddam wasn't very civilised, we in the western world are supposed to be.
Click to expand...

oh please, those idiots are gonna blow themselves up anyway, not showing the pictures wouldn't change anything, they'll still blow themselves up, with some holy war excuse when they can't think of anything else, or just blame some random person or country for it. Or they'll burn a flag or two and rattle on about blowing up NY *yawns* its all getting really boring now.

people make private home video's, that are stolen and put on the net without their permission, when nobody else was ever meant to see them.. do you complain? No, you go and ask where you can get them. Did you wonder how Pam Anderson felt having something like that going on the net when you downloaded it? You can't say "oh its her fault, she shouldn't have made a video" That video was private, not meant to be public, someone stole it and everyone saw something intimate, but it was "her fault" while this guy who doesn't even deserve privicy for the crimes he's commited, gets a bloody sympathy vote just cause there's a few pictures of him in the paper. Would you care if it was some random guy photographed in his garden like that? No you wouldn't.

It's absolutely no different except this is a guy not a girl. I bet if Saddam was female and cute and pictures appeared in the paper, and rumors of a video did the rounds, there would be an entirely different attitude towards it. Honestly, getting worked up over a guy in his undies is just silly, who really cares, he could have been naked, doesn't matter _none_ of it matters. Being annoyed about it is going to change nothing. Except maybe give you a headache, or waste your time talking about it like I'm doing now, and im sure I've far more important things to be doing than worrying about some guy in his Y-fronts.

And saying we're just as bad as them lot just cause we put a photo of him in his underwear in a paper. Is well.. laughable really. Your comparing that to genocide and terrorism. :rolleyes:
 
The Dark Elf said:
oh please, those idiots are gonna blow themselves up anyway, not showing the pictures wouldn't change anything, they'll still blow themselves up, with some holy war excuse when they can't think of anything else, or just blame some random person or country for it. Or they'll burn a flag or two and rattle on about blowing up NY *yawns* its all getting really boring now.

people make private home video's, that are stolen and put on the net without their permission, when nobody else was ever meant to see them.. do you complain? No, you go and ask where you can get them. Did you wonder how Pam Anderson felt having something like that going on the net when you downloaded it? You can't say "oh its her fault, she shouldn't have made a video" That video was private, not meant to be public, someone stole it and everyone saw something intimate, but it was "her fault" while this guy who doesn't even deserve privicy for the crimes he's commited, gets a bloody sympathy vote just cause there's a few pictures of him in the paper. Would you care if it was some random guy photographed in his garden like that? No you wouldn't.

It's absolutely no different except this is a guy not a girl. I bet if Saddam was female and cute and pictures appeared in the paper, and rumors of a video did the rounds, there would be an entirely different attitude towards it. Honestly, getting worked up over a guy in his undies is just silly, who really cares, he could have been naked, doesn't matter _none_ of it matters. Being annoyed about it is going to change nothing. Except maybe give you a headache, or waste your time talking about it like I'm doing now, and im sure I've far more important things to be doing than worrying about some guy in his Y-fronts.

And saying we're just as bad as them lot just cause we put a photo of him in his underwear in a paper. Is well.. laughable really. Your comparing that to genocide and terrorism. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The Pamela Anderson video didn't violate the Geneva convention. Laws apply to everyone.

For example, if you kill a murderer, you're still going to jail.

The Sun says the pictures will demoralise insurgents, but the truth is, the Sun says a lot of things, most are bollocks.

I don't think anyone could give two hoots about Saddam's privacy, but international law is there to be respected, even if he was the modern Hitler.
Are we not supposed to lead by example? You get these pictures, insurgents are going to parade hostages around in their underwear (just for example). The Sun is a sack of shite because they don't think of the consequences of anything except making money out of rallying their audience.

Did these pictures have any relevance to anything at all?

And if this were to (hypothetically) make the Sun go down the pan once and for all, I'd gladly support Saddam in sueing it :E
 
The Dark Elf said:
oh please, those idiots are gonna blow themselves up anyway, not showing the pictures wouldn't change anything, they'll still blow themselves up, with some holy war excuse when they can't think of anything else, or just blame some random person or country for it. Or they'll burn a flag or two and rattle on about blowing up NY *yawns* its all getting really boring now.

people make private home video's, that are stolen and put on the net without their permission, when nobody else was ever meant to see them.. do you complain? No, you go and ask where you can get them. Did you wonder how Pam Anderson felt having something like that going on the net when you downloaded it? You can't say "oh its her fault, she shouldn't have made a video" That video was private, not meant to be public, someone stole it and everyone saw something intimate, but it was "her fault" while this guy who doesn't even deserve privicy for the crimes he's commited, gets a bloody sympathy vote just cause there's a few pictures of him in the paper. Would you care if it was some random guy photographed in his garden like that? No you wouldn't.

It's absolutely no different except this is a guy not a girl. I bet if Saddam was female and cute and pictures appeared in the paper, and rumors of a video did the rounds, there would be an entirely different attitude towards it. Honestly, getting worked up over a guy in his undies is just silly, who really cares, he could have been naked, doesn't matter _none_ of it matters. Being annoyed about it is going to change nothing. Except maybe give you a headache, or waste your time talking about it like I'm doing now, and im sure I've far more important things to be doing than worrying about some guy in his Y-fronts.

And saying we're just as bad as them lot just cause we put a photo of him in his underwear in a paper. Is well.. laughable really. Your comparing that to genocide and terrorism. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


I can understand you arguing that point if i had come on the forums wanting to know where i can find Pamela Anderson's home porn movie or whatever, but i never have...which bears the question, why the heck are you saying such rubbish and directing it at me?

If Abi Titmuss, Pamela Anderson, Saddam Hussein, Britney Spears, myself, you, or anyone for that matter have private pictures released for profit, i do believe it should be well within our right to stop that. What do you say to Channel 4 who are going to show Abi Titmuss's home video, even though she seduced women to have sex with her and never told them they were being video taped, and being told that she has no legal right to stop them from showing it?

The Sun had no other reason to put these pictures up but to make money, it isn't to help fight terrorism or any such crap like that, if it was, they would be showing a much fairer side to the Iraq war then just the "yet more American troops are killed by insurgents" news stories that they fill their newspaper with.
 
Razor said:
I can understand you arguing that point if i had come on the forums wanting to know where i can find Pamela Anderson's home porn movie or whatever, but i never have...which bears the question, why the heck are you saying such rubbish and directing it at me?

If Abi Titmuss, Pamela Anderson, Saddam Hussein, Britney Spears, myself, you, or anyone for that matter have private pictures released for profit, i do believe it should be well within our right to stop that. What do you say to Channel 4 who are going to show Abi Titmuss's home video, even though she seduced women to have sex with her and never told them they were being video taped, and being told that she has no legal right to stop them from showing it?

The Sun had no other reason to put these pictures up but to make money, it isn't to help fight terrorism or any such crap like that, if it was, they would be showing a much fairer side to the Iraq war then just the "yet more American troops are killed by insurgents" news stories that they fill their newspaper with.
Click to expand...

She never told them they were being filmed? *looks at video* I didn't realise they were blind, they must have been not to notice the camera, the one in the bath looks right at it. Never heard of roleplaying?

And why should people stop other people for making a video for profit if thats what they decide to do, why is that so wrong? Thats like saying you can't go to work because you'll be making money by doing so. Do you see how silly it sounds?

As for the rest of the stuff your saying, I wont even go there, you support who you want to support, but frankly if your supporting that side, don't expect to be very welcome in the west. Next you'll be saying innocent American's deserved what they got. Or is that your plan, so you can try turn this around on me eh? heh sorry, wont work :)


Just read what you wrote again


If Abi Titmuss, Pamela Anderson, Saddam Hussein, Britney Spears, myself, you, or anyone for that matter have private pictures released for profit, i do believe it should be well within our right to stop that. What do you say to Channel 4 who are going to show Abi Titmuss's home video, even though she seduced women to have sex with her and never told them they were being video taped, and being told that she has no legal right to stop them from showing it?
Click to expand...

You completely argued yourself out of whatever point you were trying to make. To you, its like "its ok, because its on the net, thats fine" but then you get all upset if its in a newspaper or on TV.. *shakes head and laughs* One rule for one person, another for someone else eh. :upstare:
 
kirovman said:
The Pamela Anderson video didn't violate the Geneva convention. Laws apply to everyone.

For example, if you kill a murderer, you're still going to jail.

The Sun says the pictures will demoralise insurgents, but the truth is, the Sun says a lot of things, most are bollocks.

I don't think anyone could give two hoots about Saddam's privacy, but international law is there to be respected, even if he was the modern Hitler.
Are we not supposed to lead by example? You get these pictures, insurgents are going to parade hostages around in their underwear (just for example). The Sun is a sack of shite because they don't think of the consequences of anything except making money out of rallying their audience.

Did these pictures have any relevance to anything at all?

And if this were to (hypothetically) make the Sun go down the pan once and for all, I'd gladly support Saddam in sueing it :E
Click to expand...


of course the sun newspaper is a sack of shite, its just for tits and bums, its like the daily sport, nobody gets worked up about it though lol


the US army making fools of terrorists making them do all sorts.. less fuss was made about that than these pictures. How is a guy washing his socks wrong? Yes thats one of the pictures people are crying about. A guy WASHING his SOCKS... how is that a breach of anything.


As for insurgents, they were doing all that long before anyway, it wont change anything. Again this is comparing a harmless photo that would be forgotton a week later if people just dropped it and stopped worrying over it, to beheading, rape, molesting, torture etc. and so on of captured westerners... Still failing to see the similarities. It's just a bunch of people getting worked up about nothing.

NOW.. if you all protested as much about private sex video's, people's webcam footage, naked photo's or joe public, I'd see you have a point, but right now I don't, your all off taking the piss out of Paris Hilton in another thread, while protecting Saddam Hussain in this one.. It beggers belief, just because its fashionable to take the piss out of Paris, its ok that her mobile phone was stolen, private numbers given out (IIRC a few of you were pasting up URL's of private phone numbers and addresses in public) and then complaining when you got told off.. Why is that ok but this isn't? lol silly.
 
The Dark Elf said:
She never told them they were being filmed? *looks at video* I didn't realise they were blind, they must have been not to notice the camera, the one in the bath looks right at it. Never heard of roleplaying?

And why should people stop other people for making a video for profit if thats what they decide to do, why is that so wrong? Thats like saying you can't go to work because you'll be making money by doing so. Do you see how silly it sounds?

As for the rest of the stuff your saying, I wont even go there, you support who you want to support, but frankly if your supporting that side, don't expect to be very welcome in the west. Next you'll be saying innocent American's deserved what they got. Or is that your plan, so you can try turn this around on me eh? heh sorry, wont work :)


Just read what you wrote again


You completely argued yourself out of whatever point you were trying to make. To you, its like "its ok, because its on the net, thats fine" but then you get all upset if its in a newspaper or on TV.. *shakes head and laughs* One rule for one person, another for someone else eh. :upstare:
Click to expand...


The newspapers reporte, and also interviews she has done, have reported that she has multiple tapes, some of which her and her then boyfriend John Leslie had seduced women in to have sex with her but not told them about being filmed.

And i have absolutely no idea what you're trying to argue as you seem to of miss my post entirely, are you saying that it is right for a newspaper to film people without their knowledge and profit them or use private tapes that have been stolen from their owners for their own profits?


I was merely arguing that whomever a person is, if they have private and personal things of theirs stolen by people, they should be allowed to seek justice and not allow anyone to profit from it? Why are you arguing against that point.
 
Razor said:
The newspapers reporte, and also interviews she has done, have reported that she has multiple tapes, some of which her and her then boyfriend John Leslie had seduced women in to have sex with her but not told them about being filmed.

And i have absolutely no idea what you're trying to argue as you seem to of miss my post entirely, are you saying that it is right for a newspaper to film people without their knowledge and profit them or use private tapes that have been stolen from their owners for their own profits?


I was merely arguing that whomever a person is, if they have private and personal things of theirs stolen by people, they should be allowed to seek justice and not allow anyone to profit from it? Why are you arguing against that point.
Click to expand...


Who's arguing? apart from you?

I'm simply pointing out that you

firstly say saddam has rights but these others who's tapes were stolen have none

then you say anyone making video's for profit must be stopped

then you say anyone has rights


make up your damn mind lol
 
The Dark Elf said:
NOW.. if you all protested as much about private sex video's, people's webcam footage, naked photo's or joe public, I'd see you have a point, but right now I don't, your all off taking the piss out of Paris Hilton in another thread, while protecting Saddam Hussain in this one.. It beggers belief, just because its fashionable to take the piss out of Paris, its ok that her mobile phone was stolen, private numbers given out (IIRC a few of you were pasting up URL's of private phone numbers and addresses in public) and then complaining when you got told off.. Why is that ok but this isn't? lol silly.
Click to expand...


I am one of those people that thought it was disgusting that someone would try to profit from Paris Hilton's misforture and give out private numbers to people...

And it isn't just a photo of someone washing their socks, it is a photo created in secret about a person who is going about their everyday routine, a routine, as he has expressed now, he doesn't want people seeing. He is well within his own right to stop people taking pictures of him doing private things in the confines of his own space and have them make a profit out of them. You, Dark Elf, come across as someone who likes their privacy and doesn't want people off the internet knowing who you are, and just want people on the internet to know what you choose you want to indulge to them? What if the Sun newspaper had printed pictures of you in your underwear on their front page, telling them all about this amazing guy on the halflife2.net who was a abit of dark character and painted pictures of naked women, you didn't authorise anysuch story or pictures, yet you would be fully willing to accept that?
 
The Dark Elf said:
of course the sun newspaper is a sack of shite, its just for tits and bums, its like the daily sport, nobody gets worked up about it though lol


the US army making fools of terrorists making them do all sorts.. less fuss was made about that than these pictures. How is a guy washing his socks wrong? Yes thats one of the pictures people are crying about. A guy WASHING his SOCKS... how is that a breach of anything.


As for insurgents, they were doing all that long before anyway, it wont change anything. Again this is comparing a harmless photo that would be forgotton a week later if people just dropped it and stopped worrying over it, to beheading, rape, molesting, torture etc. and so on of captured westerners... Still failing to see the similarities. It's just a bunch of people getting worked up about nothing.

NOW.. if you all protested as much about private sex video's, people's webcam footage, naked photo's or joe public, I'd see you have a point, but right now I don't, your all off taking the piss out of Paris Hilton in another thread, while protecting Saddam Hussain in this one.. It beggers belief, just because its fashionable to take the piss out of Paris, its ok that her mobile phone was stolen, private numbers given out (IIRC a few of you were pasting up URL's of private phone numbers and addresses in public) and then complaining when you got told off.. Why is that ok but this isn't? lol silly.
Click to expand...

Haven't actually seen Paris Hilton's video, but when it first appeared I wondered who would actually publish that kind of thing.

Anyway, I'm not overly concerned over Saddam's well being or whatnot, but there was something called the Geneva convention which may have been violated here.

Just as I was displeased by the Mirror publishing fake pictures of British troops abusing Iraqis, I am here again displeased by another tabloid.
I am more concerned about WHY they did it. If it was for a noble cause I could go with that, but it wasn't. They did it more for humour value than anything, but Saddam Hussein is no laughing matter.

Imagine them in 1945 "Hitler killed loads of Jews, but let's laugh at him! He's got his trousers round his ankles!"

Anyway you're right, shouldn't be getting worked up over the tabloid's trash.
 
The Dark Elf said:
Who's arguing? apart from you?

I'm simply pointing out that you

firstly say saddam has rights but these others who's tapes were stolen have none

then you say anyone making video's for profit must be stopped

then you say anyone has rights


make up your damn mind lol
Click to expand...

Yes, you have mis-understood my posts...please state to me where i have

" said people making videos for profit must be stopped" - my points was that people can make videos of themselves having sex, if they want to sell those videos, then let them...if those videos are private property however and are stolen and a tv show wants to profit from them without your consent, you should be fully able to stop them profiting from it.

"firstly say saddam has rights but these others who's tapes were stolen have none" - what? read the above comment.

"then you say anyone has rights" - no, not anyone has rights, everyone has rights. Everyone deserves the basic human rights, no matter who they are or what they've done. Saddam Hussein is a criminal, but still has the right to do his washing and do his private things without the pictures being sold as profit against his wishes.

Haven't actually seen Paris Hilton's video, but when it first appeared I wondered who would actually publish that kind of thing.

Anyway, I'm not overly concerned over Saddam's well being or whatnot, but there was something called the Geneva convention which may have been violated here.

Just as I was displeased by the Mirror publishing fake pictures of British troops abusing Iraqis, I am here again displeased by another tabloid.
I am more concerned about WHY they did it. If it was for a noble cause I could go with that, but it wasn't. They did it more for humour value than anything, but Saddam Hussein is no laughing matter.

Imagine them in 1945 "Hitler killed loads of Jews, but let's laugh at him! He's got his trousers round his ankles!"

Anyway you're right, shouldn't be getting worked up over the tabloid's trash.
Click to expand...

I completely agree 100%, Saddam may be a bad man but the Geneva convention does give him some rights, rights that The Sun newspaper have trodden on, which i am against.
 
Razor said:
I am one of those people that thought it was disgusting that someone would try to profit from Paris Hilton's misforture and give out private numbers to people...

And it isn't just a photo of someone washing their socks, it is a photo created in secret about a person who is going about their everyday routine, a routine, as he has expressed now, he doesn't want people seeing. He is well within his own right to stop people taking pictures of him doing private things in the confines of his own space and have them make a profit out of them. You, Dark Elf, come across as someone who likes their privacy and doesn't want people off the internet knowing who you are, and just want people on the internet to know what you choose you want to indulge to them? What if the Sun newspaper had printed pictures of you in your underwear on their front page, telling them all about this amazing guy on the halflife2.net who was a abit of dark character and painted pictures of naked women, you didn't authorise anysuch story or pictures, yet you would be fully willing to accept that?
Click to expand...

err he's in a high security prison, with CCTV, awaiting trial for crimes he commited against humanity, where does privacy come into it.. He signed away his right to annonimity by becoming a dictator and being in the public eye all the time.

You can't become an actor and then cry about photographers taking snaps of you.

You can't run around killing people for no reason, threatening the rest of the world, protecting terrorists and then get all upset when a photo of you in your pants appears in a newspaper. You accept your part of that and get on with your life. Making a fuss about it is just going to keep it in the news and cause more and more embarrasment.

Really.. if someone came along, murdered your family and loved ones, would you care how they felt if a photo of them naked appeared on the net? I very much doubt that you would. So try see things from outside the box.

Besides if you look at the photo's, he can quite clearly see there was a camera there taking pictures. Yet he continued to go about his business.. Doesn't look like someone who's too bothered about it does it. Heck people are complaining over the picture of him being taken when he was captured. It's stupid, some people just complain for the sake of complaining.

Infact, all this fuss was kicked up by lawyers.. not him himself, not Iraq, but lawyers, do you REALLY truly believe they give a crap? Their just in it for the media attention "ooh what a cool idea, we'll get noticed for sure and make lots of money, doesn't matter who we're defending"
 
The Dark Elf said:
err he's in a high security prison, with CCTV, awaiting trial for crimes he commited against humanity, where does privacy come into it.. He signed away his right to annonimity by becoming a dictator and being in the public eye all the time.

You can't become an actor and then cry about photographers taking snaps of you.

You can't run around killing people for no reason, threatening the rest of the world, protecting terrorists and then get all upset when a photo of you in your pants appears in a newspaper. You accept your part of that and get on with your life. Making a fuss about it is just going to keep it in the news and cause more and more embarrasment.

Really.. if someone came along, murdered your family and loved ones, would you care how they felt if a photo of them naked appeared on the net? I very much doubt that you would. So try see things from outside the box.

Besides if you look at the photo's, he can quite clearly see there was a camera there taking pictures. Yet he continued to go about his business.. Doesn't look like someone who's too bothered about it does it. Heck people are complaining over the picture of him being taken when he was captured. It's stupid, some people just complain for the sake of complaining.

Infact, all this fuss was kicked up by lawyers.. not him himself, not Iraq, but lawyers, do you REALLY truly believe they give a crap? Their just in it for the media attention "ooh what a cool idea, we'll get noticed for sure and make lots of money, doesn't matter who we're defending"
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter who he is or what prison he is in, he is still governed by the Geneva convention.

And no, if he murdered my family, i wouldn't care whether he was in the newspaper naked or not, but i would agree that i wouldn't be the most unbiased of people in that situation.
 
wait a minute now?

some of you are arguing for saddam?

because if he was any other prisoner i would understand.. but hes killed millions... if the iraqis captured bush they would chop him up! let alone give him a 5-star hotel room.

we treat saddam too good, we need to show those evil people in the world the punishments.. other wise more of them will pop up expecting to get caught and put away in some luxury mansion. (because anti-war people want them too treat them well.)

omg, hes had a picture taken with his clothes off, poor bastard. and hes sueing???

this is madness.
 
KoreBolteR said:
wait a minute now?

some of you are arguing for saddam?

because if he was any other prisoner i would understand.. but hes killed millions... if the iraqis captured bush they would chop him up! let alone give him a 5-star hotel room.

we treat saddam too good, we need to show those evil people in the world the punishments.. other wise more of them will pop up expecting to get caught and put away in some luxury mansion. (because anti-war people want them too treat them well.)

omg, hes had a picture taken with his clothes off, poor bastard. and hes sueing???

this is madness.
Click to expand...

Lol, that's tabloid madness again. The Daily Mail report prisoners in UK "live in 5 star conditions". So automatically that must mean Saddam has a 5 star suite.
 
im being over the top, hes getting too far good treatment for his own good.

dont get me wrong i hate the media, but showing an old mass murderer in his pants is not wrong.

show the world how weak he is
 
KoreBolteR said:
im being over the top, hes getting too far good treatment for his own good.

dont get me wrong i hate the media, but showing an old mass murderer in his pants is not wrong.

show the world how weak he is
Click to expand...
i'm not defending suddam, but this thing is a low blow, dirty and low class, i think however published those photos has to be ashamed of him/her self

i think they immeresed themselves more than they did Saddam

and finnaly, i have no interest in Seeing NAKED SADDAM
 
KoreBolteR said:
im being over the top, hes getting too far good treatment for his own good.

dont get me wrong i hate the media, but showing an old mass murderer in his pants is not wrong.

show the world how weak he is
Click to expand...

The Geneva Convention should be respected for all enemy prisioners of war. I wouldn't like it to happen to a British Soldier so I don't want it to happen to anyone else.

Let him be trialed and published in that way.
Anyone have any pictures with OWNED imposed over a half naked Saddam?
Click to expand...

Well done for lowering the rest of the thread to the level of internet. *shakes hand*
 
In answer to all those who believe Saddarse(as he is now known) should not find protection under international law.
In Robert Bolt's play, A Man for All Seasons, Sir Thomas More is confronted by Richard Rich, whose perjury will lead to More's execution. More's son-in-law, William Roper, urges More to arrest Rich. More answers that Rich has broken no law and is free to go. "And go he should if he was the Devil himself until he broke the law!"

Roper accuses More of granting benefit of law to the devil. "What would you do?" More asks. "Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ... And when the law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - Man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake."
Click to expand...
From an article by Charles Glass on this very same subject.


I think that just about says it all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jverne
when should we start worying about islam?
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
Vigilante
Vigilante
kirovman
Iraq torture worse now than under Saddam
2
Replies
70
Views
2K
Sulkdodds
Sulkdodds
kirovman
Americans tortured me - Saddam
2
Replies
46
Views
2K
Llama
Llama
The Monkey
Bounty set over Prophet cartoon
2
Replies
42
Views
3K
Nemesis6
N
rambler
iran's nuclear capability
Replies
12
Views
710
UltraProAnti
UltraProAnti
Back
Top