saddam found
Posted by: AL4N on 14 December 2003
feckin' good if you ask me
Posted on: 18 December 2003 by Berlin Fritz
Though only if it's not raining, or no bugger will bother voting anyway, bloody government always win don't they ?
Fritz Von Dickedtater
Graham Ricketts
Fritz Von Dickedtater
Graham Ricketts
Posted on: 18 December 2003 by Justin
What is this all about. No "official" people in the US of UK governments ever said that the SH was involved in 9/11. In fact, there are many quotes from Bush and co saying exactly the opposite - that there is NO evidence that SH had anything to do with 9/11. Clear as that.
BUT, for some reason, despite the fact that the US media and Uk media (other than SKY and FOX) have done everything they can to dispell the notion that SH had anything to do with 9/11, we have people on this forum suggesting that it IS the media's fault a good portion of the US thinks SH had something to do with 9/11 (which for some reason they do).
My look at the media and the governments confirms in my mind that neither party suggested that the two were linked, and in fact claimed there was no link in fact. So, I am at a loss as to WHY a good portion of the US thinks there was a link even though BUSH has denied such a link.
Is this a part of Bush's mindgame - by denying any link between SH and 9/11 he confirms such a link exists?
Here's what I think:
1) Intelligent people watch and read the media and the government.
2) The Media and the Government has denied a link between SH and 9/11, therefore,
3) intelligent people do not believe there to be a link between SH and 9/11
However,
1) Stupid people do not watch the media and government
2) Stupid people think all middle easterners are the same
3) Stupid people think there is a link between SH and 9/11.
(none of this takes into account actual, though slight, evidence that there may have been some link or that such evidence may arise.)
It's stupidity and nothing else.
Judd
BUT, for some reason, despite the fact that the US media and Uk media (other than SKY and FOX) have done everything they can to dispell the notion that SH had anything to do with 9/11, we have people on this forum suggesting that it IS the media's fault a good portion of the US thinks SH had something to do with 9/11 (which for some reason they do).
My look at the media and the governments confirms in my mind that neither party suggested that the two were linked, and in fact claimed there was no link in fact. So, I am at a loss as to WHY a good portion of the US thinks there was a link even though BUSH has denied such a link.
Is this a part of Bush's mindgame - by denying any link between SH and 9/11 he confirms such a link exists?
Here's what I think:
1) Intelligent people watch and read the media and the government.
2) The Media and the Government has denied a link between SH and 9/11, therefore,
3) intelligent people do not believe there to be a link between SH and 9/11
However,
1) Stupid people do not watch the media and government
2) Stupid people think all middle easterners are the same
3) Stupid people think there is a link between SH and 9/11.
(none of this takes into account actual, though slight, evidence that there may have been some link or that such evidence may arise.)
It's stupidity and nothing else.
Judd
Posted on: 19 December 2003 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:
Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
I didn't say I was offended by it and I did say I was hardly losing sleep over Saddam's rights.
Nonetheless it was a breach of the Geneva convention and a gratuitous one at that. I understand the need to demonstrate that he really was captured but this could easily have been done without showing him being examined for lice. The video was clearly intended to show him in as humiliating a circumstance as possible for political reasons relating to the situation in Iraq. Which is understandable but its still wrong.
Of more concern of course is that treating him in this way makes it very difficult to argue that this shouldn't happen to other prisoners captured by other regimes in the future. Like for example the RAF pilots paraded by Saddam on Iraqi TV during the first Gulf war.
Mike's comment that being cared for is not humiliating is frankly risible.
Matthew
On the Yellow Brick Road and happy
Posted on: 19 December 2003 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:
Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
Nonetheless it was a breach of the Geneva convention and a gratuitous one at that.
Please explain what the breach is.
quote:
The video was clearly intended to show him in as humiliating a circumstance as possible
Hmmmm. Two thoughts spring to mind here
1. You live in a very, very sheltered world; or
2. The video you have seen, which obviously shows a naked, beaten and bleeding Saddam strung up by his heals while undergoing a rectal examination, is not the one that I saw (which looks like a dental advert.)
quote:
Of more concern of course is that treating him in this way makes it very difficult to argue that this shouldn't happen to other prisoners captured by other regimes in the future. Like for example the RAF pilots paraded by Saddam on Iraqi TV during the first Gulf war.
Let me get this straight; Saddam should not be shown undergoing a medical examination so that clearly beat up RAF pilots won't get paraded in GW1?? Or should medical checks not be shown?
quote:
Mike's comment that being cared for is not humiliating is frankly risible.
Matthew
Matthew you have been over exposed to The Grauniad - you seem to have spelt the word "LOGICAL" as "RISIBLE"
Regards
Mike
On the Yellow Brick Road and happy
Posted on: 19 December 2003 by matthewr
"Please explain what the breach is"
Article 13 of the Third convention: "Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence and intimidation and against insults and public curiosity". The latter is taken to mean that prisoners should not, for example, be paraded on TV.
"Hmmmm. Two thoughts spring to mind here
1. You live in a very, very sheltered world; or
2. The video you have seen, which obviously shows a naked, beaten..."
The video was clearly designed to show him a humilaiated and broken man. If that was a Birtish serviceman on Iraqi TV I am fairly sure you would be jumping up and down (as would I).
"Let me get this straight; Saddam should not be shown undergoing a medical examination so that clearly beat up RAF pilots won't get paraded in GW1??"
Correct. In both cases the the public parading of POWs is illegal under the Geneva conventions and morally wrong.
"Or should medical checks not be shown?"
You cannot show POWs on TV. Showing them undergoing medical examination just compounds the problem.
Matthew
Article 13 of the Third convention: "Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence and intimidation and against insults and public curiosity". The latter is taken to mean that prisoners should not, for example, be paraded on TV.
"Hmmmm. Two thoughts spring to mind here
1. You live in a very, very sheltered world; or
2. The video you have seen, which obviously shows a naked, beaten..."
The video was clearly designed to show him a humilaiated and broken man. If that was a Birtish serviceman on Iraqi TV I am fairly sure you would be jumping up and down (as would I).
"Let me get this straight; Saddam should not be shown undergoing a medical examination so that clearly beat up RAF pilots won't get paraded in GW1??"
Correct. In both cases the the public parading of POWs is illegal under the Geneva conventions and morally wrong.
"Or should medical checks not be shown?"
You cannot show POWs on TV. Showing them undergoing medical examination just compounds the problem.
Matthew
Posted on: 20 December 2003 by Derek Wright
SH is not an ordinary POW he was the leader and primary cause of war - leaders (as always ) get different treatment from the run of the mill.
SH was one of the few that exercised choice in his behavour over the last 30 years.
Anyway the Geneva Convention gets updated and rewritten to suit the type of conflict that has just occured and is not a set of rules handed down at the beginning of time. So it is not a sacrosanct set of rules - it is only valid until it changes.
Derek
<< >>
SH was one of the few that exercised choice in his behavour over the last 30 years.
Anyway the Geneva Convention gets updated and rewritten to suit the type of conflict that has just occured and is not a set of rules handed down at the beginning of time. So it is not a sacrosanct set of rules - it is only valid until it changes.
Derek
<< >>
Posted on: 20 December 2003 by Berlin Fritz
With the initial onslaught of missiles on Baggers, Saddam Hussein would have had a good 20 minutes warning due to the howling of dogs all over the city, picking up their engine sounds well early, innit.
Source Rageh Omaar BBC Reporter on the spot at the time.
Fritz Von Welli'llbedoggonned
Graham Ricketts
Piss² People like our mate Rio Ferdinand tend to forget things they don't want to remember ? innit. Must be all that Dark Energy out there ?
$106,000 for a Baseball, now there's a thing !!
Source Rageh Omaar BBC Reporter on the spot at the time.
Fritz Von Welli'llbedoggonned
Graham Ricketts
Piss² People like our mate Rio Ferdinand tend to forget things they don't want to remember ? innit. Must be all that Dark Energy out there ?
$106,000 for a Baseball, now there's a thing !!
Posted on: 20 December 2003 by Justin
Check out what the Beeb is doing:
"An email has been circulated telling us not to refer to Saddam as a dictator," I'm told. "Instead, we are supposed to describe him as the former leader of Iraq. Apparently, because his presidency was endorsed in a referendum, he was technically elected. Hence the word dictator is banned. It's all rather ridiculous." The Beeb insists that the email merely restates existing guidelines. "We wanted to remind journalists whose work is seen and heard internationally of the need to use neutral language," says a spokesman.
Found this on the daily dish. After all, it is said, Hitler, too, was elected in an even freer election.
When are you going to get some control over this outfit.
Judd
"An email has been circulated telling us not to refer to Saddam as a dictator," I'm told. "Instead, we are supposed to describe him as the former leader of Iraq. Apparently, because his presidency was endorsed in a referendum, he was technically elected. Hence the word dictator is banned. It's all rather ridiculous." The Beeb insists that the email merely restates existing guidelines. "We wanted to remind journalists whose work is seen and heard internationally of the need to use neutral language," says a spokesman.
Found this on the daily dish. After all, it is said, Hitler, too, was elected in an even freer election.
When are you going to get some control over this outfit.
Judd
Posted on: 21 December 2003 by Berlin Fritz
The latest innovation in cost cutting, privatisation of POW's , Cuban Prisoners will be rolling their own soon too.
Fritz Von Genevaiscoolandirrellevant
Piss² All enquiries to the white house washington DC, Reductions on mass orders possible + Tax.
Graham Ricketts
Fritz Von Genevaiscoolandirrellevant
Piss² All enquiries to the white house washington DC, Reductions on mass orders possible + Tax.
Graham Ricketts
Posted on: 21 December 2003 by Roy T
Blood feud ends in the spider hole
The tale of a once-mighty leader who evades a conquering army by hiding in a hole certainly has a Biblical ring to it: " ... and the King of Mesopotamia fled unto the city of Tikrit and from there to the village of Ad Dawr which he knew, for nearby was al-Awja where he had been born more than three score years before. And he came to his cook and said: 'Keep me, here,' and it was done. And the King dug a hole eight cubits by six cubits, and there he was tormented by many rats and many mice and his beard grew long ... "
I hope all sides can now move on from the "man" to bigger things such as the country.
Guardian daily comment | Blood feud ends in the spider hole
Roy
The tale of a once-mighty leader who evades a conquering army by hiding in a hole certainly has a Biblical ring to it: " ... and the King of Mesopotamia fled unto the city of Tikrit and from there to the village of Ad Dawr which he knew, for nearby was al-Awja where he had been born more than three score years before. And he came to his cook and said: 'Keep me, here,' and it was done. And the King dug a hole eight cubits by six cubits, and there he was tormented by many rats and many mice and his beard grew long ... "
I hope all sides can now move on from the "man" to bigger things such as the country.
Guardian daily comment | Blood feud ends in the spider hole
Roy