Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: DREDIOCK on November 04, 2006, 12:43:58 PM
-
Now why hasnt this been bigger news?
One would think this trial would and pending verdict attact greater interest from the media. And population as a whole.
"BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. and Iraqi forces drastically tightened security across Baghdad on Friday in advance of Sunday's expected guilty verdict against Saddam Hussein"
Baghdad Awaits Saddam Verict (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061104/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_061104142947;_ylt=Al_WWTlaGCWRu6dzndSiSUtX6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)
-
CNN.com has had it on the front page since yesterday.
-
Now that's what you call "rare".
-
Solution:
Dig deep hole. Place saddumb in hole. Add 1 or 2 grenades minus pins. Cover hole. Problem solved.
Solution was 2/3 there when we found him, darnit.:(
-
Saddam's verdict just happens to be due on the last possible newsday before the US mid term election by some strange coincidence.
-
Originally posted by eagl
CNN.com has had it on the front page since yesterday.
No I mean not just the verdict. But the trial itself.
the flipping runaway bride got and gets more coverage then this
-
The trial did get a lot of coverage... For almost a year CNN.com covered it daily.
Saddam stomps out of courtroom
Saddam refuses to talk
Saddam plays cribbage during trial
Saddam lawyers quit
Saddam lawyers assasinated
Saddam judge quits
Saddam judge brother assasinated
It got old after about a year, so they started hitting only the highlights. Like when the judge change, or when one of the major lawyers involved had a close relative killed. You know, the usual stuff over there.
Basically nothing newsworthy has happened since the latest judge swap, except saddam getting kicked out of the courtroom a couple of times, which was duly reported by cnn.com. Since then, it's been he said she said until today when the verdict will be read.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Saddam's verdict just happens to be due on the last possible newsday before the US mid term election by some strange coincidence.
why would that concern you?
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Now why hasnt this been bigger news?
[/URL]
Because the whole trial has been a farce, its a show trial.
It just goes to show that not all trials should be televised.
shamus
-
Originally posted by storch
why would that concern you?
Because it implies the trial is more about influencing US politics than trying Saddam for his crimes.
-
He stayed in his cell, we don't get to see his reaction to the death sentence.
The former US attorney general got ejected from the court, for "making fun" of the proceedings. Does anyone know anything more specific about that?
-
as anyone really care what will happen to this bandit who was found
in a hole holding a bag full of $.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
as anyone really care what will happen to this bandit who was found
in a hole holding a bag full of $.
Actually, the hole thing was staged after the actual arrest.
-
Guilty and death by hanging.
Dunno...somehow it all seems so anti-climactic. Kind of like one of debonair's posts.
:noid :O :noid
-
It should be anti-climactic. They deserve no better than to be judged, led out the door to the courtyard and hanged. They are not worthy of too much attention.
Making a show of it would only anger the nutters who love him.
-
What they should have done was announce him guilty, walk him to the front door of the court, and release Saddam to the awaiting arms of his awaiting loyal Iraqi subjects. I am sure they would have thrown him a party to remember.
-
wonder if he will have the opportunity to appeal.
-
Read the cnn.com coverage.
Saddam was in court when the verdict was read, and as it was read he held up a koran and started hollering allah akbar over and over until he was led out of the courtroom. One of the others on trial also did this.
An appeal is automatic for the ones who received death sentences and life in prison sentences.
-
That's funny.. Saddam didn't use to be a religious person and used to meet religious heads only for PR purposes.
-
Saddam had refused to leave his cell to show up when the verdict was first read. He wasn't the only one who was dragged out hollering, from what I could tell watching the 15min-delayed coverage.
-
Well done.
Death sentence for how many people killed? I bet - less then 650 000...
I guess they are supposed to hang him ASAP instead of listening to him as a witness on other trials, he definetly knows too much. There waas no need for that farce, the result was obvious.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Solution:
Dig deep hole. Place saddumb in hole. Add 1 or 2 grenades minus pins. Cover hole. Problem solved.
Solution was 2/3 there when we found him, darnit.:(
They needed to hang him after catching, that's the problem, to make it look legitimate.
BTW, why do you hate him so much? They told you on TV that he ate your baby-sitter? I mean - is it personal? Are you an Arab-American with family in Kuwait?
-
I know this freedom concept is foreign to you boroda, but it pisses me off what he did to the Kurds.
Just the thought of Britain tossing nerve gas on the colonies when we wanted to fight for our freedom is sickening.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
That's funny.. Saddam didn't use to be a religious person and used to meet religious heads only for PR purposes.
Saddam turned to Allah when he saw that he could benefit from it.
-
Both CNN and Fox are carrying Saddams sentence on their web sites. Interesting to note the top stories by each:
CNN: Hussein is sentenced, Iraq shrugs (http://www.cnn.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1555031,00.html?cnn=yes)
Fox News: Celebratory gunfire rings out in Baghdad (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227574,00.html)
-
There is no real benefit to Bush in having the verdict announced just before the American election. Think about, it the last thing he would want would be more violence going on and the attendant losses in casualties of all kinds. That cannot reflect well on Bush no matter what kind of spin you would try to apply. The same for any demo incumbant that originally voted for the war. Assuming the media is correct, that the verdict would inflame the violence to greater heights, I would have to assume that Bush would want it delayed until after the election. At this point, since saddumb is not in Bush's control since he was turned over to the Iraqi courts he isn't "directly responsible" for him or his well being at the time. ANy increase in tensions or violence would however have a possible impact on the election.
Boroda,
Your post is rather banal. If you can't see holding a mass muderer in contempt there is nothing I could say that would convince you. I also don't care much for hitler or tojo either.
-
How the hell does Fox know what is the sound of "celebratory gunfire" or an insurgent attack. :rolleyes:
"Solution was 2/3 there when we found him, darnit."
I've always wondered what was going through the mind of the commanding officer on the scene of the arrest.
-
imop,Sadam's death sentence is stupid and irresponsible, life prisson would make more sense
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Boroda,
Your post is rather banal. If you can't see holding a mass muderer in contempt there is nothing I could say that would convince you. I also don't care much for hitler or tojo either.
You propbably don't understand. I am not protecting Saddam in any way, he could be a dictator, a mass-murderer, whatever - I don't care. What I see is the hypocricy - to hang a person who is responsible for the death of 2000 Kurds - they already killed over 650 000 (the figure is from BBC news that I watch here in Australia). 650 000 is over 5% of the whole population of Iraq, imagine: one of 20 Iraqi citizens killed in last 3 years. This is what they call "genocide", isn't it?
In 1999 NATO gangsters killed several thousand Serbs because Serbs killed 200 Albanians (and Albanians killed 200 Serbs). Guillotine is the best cure against dandruff? Saying that all this bloody "liberations" have some moral reasons and are because of the desire to sincerely help poor opressed people is insane, just look at the numbers.
Hanging Saddam is the best way to conceal the real facts that may be very unpleasant for "liberators". If you want justice - let him speak instead of shutting him down. But there is no chance, look, they had to shut down Miloshevich and then murder him, and it's easier for them to stop Saddam from speaking - he's in the hands of the occupants, not even in a staged "international justice" tribunal.
After killing 650 000 - one more, one less - it doesn't matter, but he faces many other accusations, so I want to see him trialed for all of them, and I hope that Al Jazeera will show us the details. They are killing the key witness, and it looks like they are simply trying to conceal something really unpleasant.
-
Ah, I think I see where you are going with this. Sorry for jumping on you.
They have to try Saddam on a case by case basis. They can't just throw out that he killed 5% of the population, and proceed from there. They need specific instances that he was directly responsible for.
Now, Saddam himself isn't a young man. At the pace court trials last, Saddam wouldn't survive going through every single man woman and child he killed in many separate court cases.
So they pick a big one, publicize the trial, and execute him before he dies of old age.
-
No one has killed even close to 650,000 Iraqis, except maybe Saddam in the last near 30 years. That report has been proven to be nothing but crap.
There was no actual count of bodies, graves, or death certificates.
They did a POLL, and they asked "has anyone you know or are related to been killed since the coalition invaded in 2003?"
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
There was no actual count of bodies, graves, or death certificates.
This came up years ago. There was a group of forensic scientists working on it, but I haven't heard much about it since. The articles seem to always talk about the same 3,000 shia that where killed after the uprising after the Gulf War.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
This came up years ago. There was a group of forensic scientists working on it, but I haven't heard much about it since. The articles seem to always talk about the same 3,000 shia that where killed after the uprising after the Gulf War.
What Boroda was talking about is the study from last month, claiming that 650,000 Iraqi civilians have died since the 2003 coalition invasion, that is completely unsubstantiated. That's what I was referring to in my reply.
-
Thanks for the clarification.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
No one has killed even close to 650,000 Iraqis, except maybe Saddam in the last near 30 years. That report has been proven to be nothing but crap.
There was no actual count of bodies, graves, or death certificates.
They did a POLL, and they asked "has anyone you know or are related to been killed since the coalition invaded in 2003?"
I bet if they did a poll in NJ and NY of if they anyone that died on 9/11 I bets they would end up with ALOT more then 2,000 too
::edit: no Im not trying to make a connection betwen the two.
Other then to say for example
if they polled all the membrs of one family that lost a member of their family and asked if anyone they knew died oon 9/11 and there were 10 people on that family the end number for that one person would be 10.
Same person being reported by all 10 members
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
No one has killed even close to 650,000 Iraqis, except maybe Saddam in the last near 30 years. That report has been proven to be nothing but crap.
You see, now I am watching Western news programms, so I can only rely on this numbers :)
5% of the population is a huge number, it's an irrecoverable demographic damage.
OTOH - if there is no other source - then all we can do is to stick to what we have.
-
No. Just because I'm the only one to pull some random number out of my bellybutton doesn't mean you have to give credibility to me.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
No. Just because I'm the only one to pull some random number out of my bellybutton doesn't mean you have to give credibility to me.
Hey, I saw it on TV, it has to be true! :D Not on Russian "government-controlled commie propaganda" channel, but on a glorious Western Free Media! ;)
Look, BBC already admitted that 650 000 were killed in Iraq, one of the "coalition" countries, how dare you to argue with this numbers?! :D
-
Originally posted by Boroda
In 1999 NATO gangsters killed several thousand Serbs because Serbs killed 200 Albanians (and Albanians killed 200 Serbs).
Like Al Capone gangsters? Did they have cool hats on?:O
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Actually, the hole thing was staged after the actual arrest.
No, actually it wasn't.