Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Sun shows saddam in his pants

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sun shows saddam in his pants

    The UK tabloid the Sun has just published a front page photo of Saddam Hussein in his underpants.

    Good to see that the paper has kept up to its usual standards of fabricating news and pandering to the lowest common denominator (those people who read the paper back to front for the sports pages)

    While noone can hold any love for Saddam, it does make you wonder whether it is a good thing to demean someone in this way. To me this sort of thing almost makes light of the crime's Saddam is charged with.

    However much of a monster he is, Saddam should be accorded all the rights and dignity that he denied his people. Am I wrong in thinking this?!

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl...2005/img/8.jpg
    Batman: It's a low neighborhood, full of rumpots. They're used to curious sights, which they attribute to alcoholic delusions.

    Robin: Gosh, drink is sure a filthy thing, isn't it? I'd rather be dead than unable to trust my own eyes!

  • #2
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4565505.stm

    Here's a story about that from the BBC. Apparently US authorities are 'outraged' by this breach of security which contravenes the Geneva Convention.

    The US said the photos appeared to breach Geneva Convention rules on the humane treatment of prisoners of war.

    "Multinational Forces-Iraq is disappointed at the possibility that someone responsible for the security, welfare, and detention of Saddam would take and provide these photos for public release," a statement from the US-led force said.
    Unfortunately the US has already given a fairly strong impression to the world that the Geneva convention no longer applies to 'some' prisoners, so perhaps this kind of thing is considered 'fair game'. Doesn't say a lot for our society really.
    Batman: It's a low neighborhood, full of rumpots. They're used to curious sights, which they attribute to alcoholic delusions.

    Robin: Gosh, drink is sure a filthy thing, isn't it? I'd rather be dead than unable to trust my own eyes!

    Comment


    • #3
      I had read, somewhere, that Saddam and King George I were business partners at one time and then their relationship went sour. Perhaps elder Bush is having a chuckle.

      It's fairly easy to release something and then pretend to be surprised and angry over it.

      Of course, it may not be true. I've been through so many conspiracy web sites that I may be mixing fantasy with fact, but I can see it happening.

      Comment


      • #4
        What do you mean, Geneva Convention? That only applies to our guys!

        Sadly, that's what this administration seems to think. "Enemy combatants" are different than "soldiers," and "detainees" are different than "prisoners of war."8O :oops: :roll:

        As an aside, I find it quite ironic that this is the same administration that has a mission to destroy trial lawyers for "twisting words and legalities" for big settlements. I guess it is fine to twist words and legalities to push a misguided agenda.

        What bothers me most is that the U.S. used to hold itself to a different standard of conduct. Now it seems as if, as a nation, we are tolerating--and in some cases celebrating--the lowest common denominator we used to abhor.

        The whole maxim of showing your mettle when it matters is wasted here. This administration has decided, time and again, that we operate under a new set of rules, simply because we were attacked. Yes, I said simply. It's easy to have principles when they aren't tested. As a nation, our principles were tested once, and look what people are willingly giving up, in the name of "freedom." :?

        I risk a rant...

        MrE, you mentioned the relationship between George I and Saddam--

        People are very quick in forgetting how many U.S. businesspeople, especially oil executives, were in bed with Saddam before he was an "evildoer."

        All of it makes me sick to my stomach.

        Comment


        • #5
          Looks like Saddam's showing his mettle.

          Seriously - do Scum readers really get a kick out of this shite? Saddam in his underpants. Big f**king deal. Next they'll be telling us that Bin Laden wears socks. Or maybe not. We've supposed to have forgotten about him.
          \"...an ape reft of his tail, and grown rusty at climbing, who yet feels himself to be a symbol and the frail representative of Omnipotence in a place that is not home.\" James Branch Cabell

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Mikey_C
            Next they'll be telling us that Bin Laden wears socks. Or maybe not. We've supposed to have forgotten about him.
            Who is this Bin Laden guy? Saddam was responsible for all the evil ever brought down on the U.S. :roll:

            Seriously, though, you make me stop to think about who really is interested in the picture in the first place. Forget the deep issues it raises (for a moment), and it really seems creepy that someone in an editorial meeting said, "This will send our circulation through the roof! Ladies and gentlemen, I give you... Saddam in his underwear!"

            Excuse me while I wash my hands.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Sun shows saddam in his pants

              Originally posted by devilchicken
              ...

              While noone can hold any love for Saddam, it does make you wonder whether it is a good thing to demean someone in this way. To me this sort of thing almost makes light of the crime's Saddam is charged with.

              However much of a monster he is, Saddam should be accorded all the rights and dignity that he denied his people. Am I wrong in thinking this?!

              http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl...2005/img/8.jpg
              I'm sorry, even though I truly loathe The Sun, its buttmonkey journalists and their owner, I can't take the above seriously.

              It was a few pictures of an old man in his underpants. So? I've seen far worse, ordinary people, victims, innocent and undeserving, humilated in print by The Scum. So, pictures of Saddam Hussein, in his airtex kecks, do not shock.

              A few more tyrants should be subjected to the same treament. Pinochet in his nappy, etc. :)

              Comment


              • #8
                At least they're clean. He's obviously been following his mum's advice. Now, if there were skidmarks, that would be an abuse of human rights... :lol:

                Seriously though, don't you think that, despite its protestations, the US military is almost bound to be in on this? It certainly looks like some sort of psy-op against the 'resistance'. Anyone who still thinks of Saddam as a heroic figure on a statue might just about realise now that he's just a washed up old has-been. Or will it just make them more angry?

                I wonder if he ever wishes he could take the Goering way out?
                \"...an ape reft of his tail, and grown rusty at climbing, who yet feels himself to be a symbol and the frail representative of Omnipotence in a place that is not home.\" James Branch Cabell

                Comment


                • #9
                  I just think that as a society we shouldn't be condoning this kind of thing. As I mentioned, noone can (or should) have any love for an obviously brutal dictator who has killed thousands of people - but its not an unreasonable expectation to want to see the guy treated with the respect he has denied others (especially with the shadow of Abu Ghraib hanging over people's perceptions). The mark of an intelligent society perhaps? I mean, where will this lead - in future will we be dragging our 'enemies' to the Hague on all fours with an apple in their mouths?

                  I just wonder what sort of message this sends out... especially with that furore over the Newsweek story in Afghanistan last week. It just feeds perceptions that the US and its allies treat their enemies little better than dogs to be kicked around. And there is a certain point of view that as much as many Iraqi's hated Saddam, they identify more with him than they do with the Americans.

                  Of course none of this changes the fact that the Sun is an excreble publication, and that biased journalism should never ever be confused with plain old shitty journalism.
                  Batman: It's a low neighborhood, full of rumpots. They're used to curious sights, which they attribute to alcoholic delusions.

                  Robin: Gosh, drink is sure a filthy thing, isn't it? I'd rather be dead than unable to trust my own eyes!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by devilchicken
                    I just think that as a society we shouldn't be condoning this kind of thing. As I mentioned, noone can (or should) have any love for an obviously brutal dictator who has killed thousands of people
                    Well you'd think so wouldn't you? but people still voted him back in and Cherie still seems to be quite fond of him

                    enough digs at Mr Blair(I hope that slipped disk REALLY hurts Tony) lets get back to the main feature.....

                    How would the coalition have felt if photos of Pvt Lynch in her underwear had been circulated when she was a POW?

                    there are two essential human rights here, the right to privacy and the right to dignity. Defeating Sadam does not give us the right to violate his right to either.

                    he looked better with a beard.
                    \"It got worse. He needed something to cure himself. What? he asked. M-A 19 he answered.\"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Since Abu Graib it is quite obvious that the "moral superiority" of the victors is a joke, and the fact such a picture is shown by the "rat press" (now also in Germany by "BildZeitung" the Teutonic equivalent to "The Sun") is not the problem, the problem for me is really how lowly must the moral standards be that are taught to the troops of the country that maintains it is the "Leader of the Free World".
                      This way we (the West) are not going to convince a single Muslim and not a single Iraqi that their matters are in decent hands.
                      So sad.
                      Google ergo sum

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The point is if the Iraqi's had custody of Saddam and chose to publicly humiliate him by publishing these sorts of pictures, then at least they would have a valid reason for doing it.

                        For the west to do it, the issue becomes a little more complex. Saddam didn't gas 'our' people, he didn't 'disappear' hundreds of westerners. So other than him being on the losing side of the war, WE have NO justification for this kind of thing, and it impacts directly on Arab people's perceptions of the west and our motivations. Certainly in light of Abu Ghraib and the Newsweek story.

                        BTW - while the Newsweek story was pulled, there are many other reports coming to light, as a result (in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay) of US prison guards disrespecting the muslim holy book.

                        The issue then becomes HOW this is perceived by people's of the region. While many undoubtedly hate Saddam, I've a fair idea that most Iraqis would identify more closely with Saddam than they do with us. I mean, if your once-feared ex president is paraded around the world in his underwear, what would that say to you about how the average Iraqi will likely be treated in American hands?

                        So no this kind of thing does the US no favours at all in the muslim world, and in fact it runs the risk of adding fuel to the fire.
                        Batman: It's a low neighborhood, full of rumpots. They're used to curious sights, which they attribute to alcoholic delusions.

                        Robin: Gosh, drink is sure a filthy thing, isn't it? I'd rather be dead than unable to trust my own eyes!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          You are right, of course, I had forgotten that Saddam is technically in the hands of the Iraqis. I doubt, however, that the CIA or other US "Uncles" are letting the Iraqis guard him all alone. And who besides the Japanese are the most picture-taking lot, I ask you? Who would have imagined that after the Japanese invasion of China, WW2 and Vietnam (those three murderous wars of which we all know depictions of the perpetrators showing off their victims agony, and often, heads) soldiers of our countries would so "innocently" take snaps of humiliation scenes?
                          Google ergo sum

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by TheAdlerian
                            Firstly, I think that the photos are wrong and in bad taste. Given the option I would not have printed them.

                            However, I recall that he thought that he was some kind of reincarnation of some famous mystic warrior. I also recall that he had a large collection of Boris Vallejo-type fantasy art. So, I wonder if this guy’s followers think that he is some kind of fantasy figure. If so, the old man in his underpants makes sense as a form of psychological warfare, not that that’s right of course. Good idea though.
                            I wonder if his adversaries B&B would dare an open comparison in same attire. Given his age and biography he looks quite well, too!
                            Google ergo sum

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by LEtranger
                              Since Abu Graib it is quite obvious that the "moral superiority" of the victors is a joke, and the fact such a picture is shown by the "rat press" (now also in Germany by "BildZeitung" the Teutonic equivalent to "The Sun") is not the problem, the problem for me is really how lowly must the moral standards be that are taught to the troops of the country that maintains it is the "Leader of the Free World".
                              This way we (the West) are not going to convince a single Muslim and not a single Iraqi that their matters are in decent hands.
                              So sad.
                              This is the real point, of course. Moral superiority, glass houses, etc...

                              Even though he is technically in the hands of the Iraqis, remember that Iraq is also technically governed by Iraqis. If you believe either of those things are real in practice, I have some snake-oil and swampland to sell you.

                              devilchicken has made some great points about how this shouldn't happen to any prisoner (don't give me that "detainee" crap). Because Saddam has the world's attention, he should be treated better, not worse, than any other prisoner. That makes the point the U.S. (and the West) should make, particularly if the West is serious about "winning the hearts and minds" of Muslims.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X