Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 5/20/2005 8:02:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/20/2005 8:17:49 AM EDT by kill-9]
OMG!! What have we done?!?!? Now they're going to start blowing up their countrymen and savagely murdering foreigners!! Oh, wait...


Backlash fear over Saddam pictures
Daily Mail

Sensational pictures of Saddam Hussein in his underwear were printed last night - reigniting the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal.

The toppled dictator is seen in his jail cell wearing nothing but white underpants as he folds a pair of trousers.

Saddam is being held by U.S. guards and it is believed the photographs, printed in later editions of today's Sun, were taken by American sources.

The newspaper would not say how it came by the pictures or give any details about how they were taken.

But the humiliating image of such a high-profile prisoner is bound to add to the furore of the abuse at Abu Ghraib.

Pictures of U.S. soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners shocked the world and caused immense damage to American standing in the Arab world. Saddam, 67, has been held by U.S. forces at

a compound near Baghdad since his capture December 2003 in a tiny 'spiderhole' cellar in north Iraq.

He made his first court appearance last July and his trial on war crimes and genocide charges is one of the first priorities of the fledgling Iraqi government.

Typically, he was defiant as ever, branding U.S. president George Bush the 'real criminal' and defended Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

He has been allowed visits by lawyers and there was speculation that the leaking of the pictures could have been an attempt by supporters to smear his U.S. captors.

In the pictures Saddam looks well-fed and appears to have put on weight since his

The Pentagon was last night investigating what appeared to be a major breach of security over the photographs.

Saddam, who is due to go on trial for war crimes this summer, is being held in a heavily-guarded American compound near Baghdad.

Under the Geneva Convention and special agreements with the United Nations, the U.S. and its allies are forbidden to release photographs of prisoners of war such as Saddam.

The picture is certain to enrage his fellow Sunni Muslims and former members of his political party who are now part of the insurgent movement in Iraq.

'If this photograph proves to be genuine, it might result in a new intensive wave of violence,' said a Pentagon source last night.

'Again, presuming it's genuine, its release will be tremendously embarrassing to us. We must find out where this came from.'
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 8:05:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/20/2005 8:07:18 AM EDT by vito113]

Sadaam in his Y fronts… "The Butcher of Sagdad"……Good old Sun!


Link Posted: 5/20/2005 10:49:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/20/2005 8:30:36 PM EDT by NYPatriot]
Like the practitioners of the RoP actually need a reason to behave like murderous savages.

Violence, bloodlust & faux righteous indignation are pillars of their faith & culture, and to believe otherwise is to ignore history.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 10:54:38 AM EDT
Hell, take the picture and make a flag out of it.

Fly that puppy everywhere.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 11:06:27 AM EDT
I can't believe that Saddam is still alive.

Shit, with what awaits that fuck of fucks, I'd kill myself!

It will be a great day when he no longer breathes the same air as Americans!

But I think we should lead him in CHAINS to his court appearance, when it finally does happen.

Even better would be "W" holding his chain leash as he heads off to trial.

Any photoshoppers here?
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 11:09:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/20/2005 11:09:55 AM EDT by SirDrinksAlot]

Originally Posted By kill-9:
Pictures of U.S. soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners shocked the world and caused immense damage to American standing in the Arab world.

Hmm...wow. Yet Terriosts can execute people to no end and not even get a single mention.

Come to think of it, If I was a terriost I would be pissed off that none of my actions ever get any news light. Kind of like the evil genius that always gets pissed off because no-one ever recognizes his work.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 11:15:53 AM EDT
Anyone who would suffer death or riot because of this picture or someone dumping a Quran in the crapper is a brainless idiot. Who gives a shit if he had his picture taken by some fun loving G.I.

Is that all these people are about? Do they just wake up every morning looking for someone to hate or where they are going to set off the next bomb? I mean, if that's the case, why haven't we started killing them wholesale. The only reason anyone associates with them is because they happen to be sitting on oil reserves.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 11:19:11 AM EDT
I'm still waiting on the photoshops
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 11:20:38 AM EDT
I think it makes us look bad.

But I really don't give a shit.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 1:43:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/20/2005 1:45:47 PM EDT by PeteCO]
As usual, any excuse to act like fucking savages

And the media are a bunch of fucking morons. As with the Koran -toilet story, you'd think these fucking idiots would be responsible enough to exercise just a little discretion. In fact, this article says it all:


By Ann Coulter Wed May 18, 7:01 PM ET

When ace reporter Michael Isikoff had the scoop of the decade, a thoroughly sourced story about the president of the United States having an affair with an intern and then pressuring her to lie about it under oath, Newsweek decided not to run the story. Matt Drudge scooped Newsweek, followed by The Washington Post.

When Isikoff had a detailed account of Kathleen Willey's nasty sexual encounter with the president in the Oval Office, backed up with eyewitness and documentary evidence, Newsweek decided not to run it. Again, Matt Drudge got the story.

When Isikoff was the first with detailed reporting on Paula Jones' accusations against a sitting president, Isikoff's then-employer The Washington Post -- which owns Newsweek -- decided not to run it. The American Spectator got the story, followed by the Los Angeles Times.

So apparently it's possible for Michael Isikoff to have a story that actually is true, but for his editors not to run it.

Why no pause for reflection when Isikoff had a story about American interrogators at Guantanamo flushing the Quran down the toilet? Why not sit on this story for, say, even half as long as NBC News sat on Lisa Meyers' highly credible account of
Bill Clinton raping Juanita Broaddrick?

Newsweek seems to have very different responses to the same reporter's scoops. Who's deciding which of Isikoff's stories to run and which to hold? I note that the ones that Matt Drudge runs have turned out to be more accurate -- and interesting! -- than the ones Newsweek runs. Maybe Newsweek should start running everything past Matt Drudge.

Somehow Newsweek missed the story a few weeks ago about Saudi Arabia arresting 40 Christians for "trying to spread their poisonous religious beliefs." But give the American media a story about American interrogators defacing the Quran, and journalists are so appalled there's no time for fact-checking -- before they dash off to see the latest exhibition of "Piss Christ."

Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas justified Newsweek's decision to run the incendiary anti-U.S. story about the Quran, saying that "similar reports from released detainees" had already run in the foreign press -- "and in the Arab news agency al-Jazeera."

Is there an adult on the editorial board of Newsweek? Al-Jazeera also broadcast a TV miniseries last year based on the "Protocols of the Elders Of Zion." (I didn't see it, but I hear James Brolin was great!) Al-Jazeera has run programs on the intriguing question, "Is Zionism worse than Nazism?" (Take a wild guess where the consensus was on this one.) It runs viewer comments about Jews being descended from pigs and apes. How about that for a Newsweek cover story, Evan? You're covered -- al-Jazeera has already run similar reports!

Ironically, among the reasons Newsweek gave for killing Isikoff's Lewinsky bombshell was that Evan Thomas was worried someone might get hurt. It seems that Lewinsky could be heard on tape saying that if the story came out, "I'll (expletive) kill myself."

But Newsweek couldn't wait a moment to run a story that predictably ginned up Islamic savages into murderous riots in
Afghanistan, leaving hundreds injured and 16 dead. Who could have seen that coming? These are people who stone rape victims to death because the family "honor" has been violated and who fly planes into American skyscrapers because -- wait, why did they do that again?

Come to think of it, I'm not sure it's entirely fair to hold Newsweek responsible for inciting violence among people who view ancient Buddhist statues as outrageous provocation -- though I was really looking forward to finally agreeing with Islamic loonies about something. (Bumper sticker idea for liberals: News magazines don't kill people, Muslims do.) But then I wouldn't have sat on the story of the decade because of the empty threats of a drama queen gas-bagging with her friend on the telephone between spoonfuls of Haagen-Dazs.

No matter how I look at it, I can't grasp the editorial judgment that kills Isikoff's stories about a sitting president molesting the help and obstructing justice, while running Isikoff's not particularly newsworthy (or well-sourced) story about Americans desecrating a Quran at Guantanamo.

Even if it were true, why not sit on it? There are a lot of reasons the media withhold even true facts from readers. These include:

# A drama queen nitwit exclaimed she'd kill herself. (Evan Thomas' reason for holding the Lewinsky story.)

# The need for "more independent reporting." (Newsweek President Richard Smith explaining why Newsweek sat on the Lewinsky story even though the magazine had Lewinsky on tape describing the affair.)

# "We were in Havana." (ABC president David Westin explaining why "Nightline" held the Lewinsky story.)

# Unavailable for comment. (Michael Oreskes, New York Times Washington bureau chief, in response to why, the day The Washington Post ran the Lewinsky story, the Times ran a staged photo of Clinton meeting with the Israeli president on its front page.)

# Protecting the privacy of an alleged rape victim even when the accusation turns out to be false.

# Protecting an accused rapist even when the accusation turns out to be true if the perp is a Democratic president most journalists voted for.

# Protecting a reporter's source.

How about the media adding to the list of reasons not to run a news item: "Protecting the national interest"? If journalists don't like the ring of that, how about this one: "Protecting ourselves before the American people rise up and lynch us for our relentless anti-American stories."
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 1:48:13 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 1:52:17 PM EDT
They want to cut your head off and murder your children whether or not you have racy pictures of their beloved dictator.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 2:02:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
I think it makes us look bad.

How so? Personally I think we have treated prisoners, including those of Abu Graib, more fair then they have treated ours. I'd like to see us behead theirs and hang theirs from poles and see how they like it. Of course, they would be covered in pig's blood. Its time to get the media the Hell out of there and do what we should have done all along.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 2:20:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MrClean4Hire:
I'm still waiting on the photoshops

…"Here's a little something I picked up in Iraq"…
Top Top