Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gixer on May 20, 2005, 05:49:06 PM
-
"Two newspapers owned by the media mogul Rupert Murdoch, The Sun of London and The New York Post, published photographs on Friday showing an imprisoned Saddam Hussein in his underwear.
The newspapers said the pictures had been provided by U.S. military sources to undermine the Iraqi rebellion."
That seems pretty stupid surely it would have the opposite effect as far as the insurgency.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
"Two newspapers owned by the media mogul Rupert Murdoch, The Sun of London and The New York Post, published photographs on Friday showing an imprisoned Saddam Hussein in his underwear.
The newspapers said the pictures had been provided by U.S. military sources to undermine the Iraqi rebellion."
That seems pretty stupid surely it would have the opposite effect as far as the insurgency.
...-Gixer
not if you see a once powerfull deadly feared ruthless dictator as a prisoner in his undies......you seem to think that the regular joe/habib iraqi liked Sadam. I don't think they like US troops any more/less but I'm sure that the degree of seperation between somone who's lost somone because of him isn't all that large.
-
I personaly cannot begin to imagine what kind of weird, twisted mind it takes to release photos, world wide of such a humanitarian such as Saddam in his BVDs.
I think immediate legal action should be taken in this case.
Other than wiping out thousands upon thousands of people for the hell of it this man has done nothing to deserve this.
Well.....there is that that rumor that he had a hobby of capping his own family on a regular basis and the few times he totaly wiped out the people of his own country for chits and giggles, but for God`s sake that`s a pic of him in his underwear.
WTF is the world coming to?
Must be The Evil US Empire behind this.
-
Gixer is still hoping for the overthrow of the US...
I personally feel sorry for Gixer.
-
Surely the picture of Saddam in his fruit of the looms advances the revolution against imperialism a few minutes?;)
-
What does the Geneva convention states?
-
it sez 'war is naughty. play nice'.
*yawn*
-
Originally posted by Gixer
"Two newspapers owned by the media mogul Rupert Murdoch, The Sun of London and The New York Post, published photographs on Friday showing an imprisoned Saddam Hussein in his underwear.
The newspapers said the pictures had been provided by U.S. military sources to undermine the Iraqi rebellion."
That seems pretty stupid surely it would have the opposite effect as far as the insurgency.
...-Gixer
Who cares.
-
It was simply a photo the sadman had sent out to one of the online dating services and the brits picked up on it.
lazs
-
Anyone who believes anything from a tabloid is a fool. I wouldn't put any credibility in anything they say.
Just a question here. Wasn't the plan to turn over saddumb to the Iraqi's?
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Anyone who believes anything from a tabloid is a fool. I wouldn't put any credibility in anything they say.
Just a question here. Wasn't the plan to turn over saddumb to the Iraqi's?
He'll be tried by the Iraqis, but he is being held by the coalition (presumably because they want to interrogate him and they especially don't want him to go walkies or turn up dead).
-
This is almost as bad as the horrible frat hazing at Abu Gharib. The offenders should be put on double secret probation immediately.
-
"Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
Adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, held in Geneva from 21 April to 12 August, 1949
entry into force 21 October 1950
PART I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
...
Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;"
-
I don't think the Sun or the NY Post are signitaries to the Geneva Convention.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
"Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
Adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, held in Geneva from 21 April to 12 August, 1949
entry into force 21 October 1950
PART I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
...
Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;"
So I guess nerples are outta the question?
-
Do you mean if requested?
-
would YOU request a nerple??
whups.. nevermind. Dumb question.
-
Rupert Murdoch owns Fox.
Fox News does not propagate Murdoch's agenda.
-SW
-
I'd have thought a manly-man, Kurd gassin', Kuwait invadin', Allah defendin' guy like Saddam would be PROUD to show his manliness in his undies.
You really think he feels degraded?
-
The best part of the story is that Al-Jazeera refused to show the photos because they felt they were too offensive. They called the photos "demeaning" and not newsworthy.
I guess they'd rather air terrorist's videos showing the cutting of people's heads off instead. Nothing offensive about that.
:aok
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/5/21/120017.shtml
-
So what do you guys thing gixer wacked off to first the pics or the story smearing the US?
-
Are Fox news and Saddam signatories to the Geneva convention?
-
I think the OJ Simpson defense team is headed to Iraq.
-
Frankly, I hope they've had saddam tossin salads.
If they gave me the choice between tossin' a salad and the electric chair I'd take the chair... 'so where do yah plug it in?.. and shouldn't I be wet?'
Chris Rock
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I think the OJ Simpson defense team is headed to Iraq.
Only part of them are on the way to Iraq. Cochran has a prior engagement farther to the "south".