View Full Version : Saddam more powerful than the sun?

22nd May 2005, 06:07
Saddam Hussein's lawyers are proposing to sue The Sun newspaper (UK), claiming that photographs shown in that publication are a violation of his human rights.

US legal experts said the photos may breach Geneva Convention rules on the humane treatment of prisoners of war.

The Sun's front page showed him wearing a pair of white underpants, washing his trousers, shuffling around and sleeping.

Poor dear. Bless. :rolleyes:

23rd May 2005, 01:24
It just shows what blatant disrespect the morons that run the most powerful country on earth have for the rest of us.

I expect they think they can do what they like because he's a wog!

It would not even occur to them that this standard will be applied if the 'terrorist' resistance get hold of somebody important from their regime. Would actually sell a paper to me having shots of Rumsfeld with his head shaved being forced to wipe his @rse on pikkies of archmoron bush.

23rd May 2005, 11:34
The Sun is a Brit paper....not the most intellectual of rags.

El Grifo
23rd May 2005, 11:36
Now there's a classic understatement if I ever saw one !!!!

:ok: :cool: :ok:

23rd May 2005, 11:53
I fear that last comment from FLCH may be rewarded by round the clock surveillance from the NSA...

We are trying to impose our very highest standards of morality on the great-unwashed. So may I remind everyone that until Sadaam Hussein has been tried and proven guilty...?!

Sources of natural light can be found in the most unexpected places. Tabloid editors try to protect their sources but sometimes they can't help themselves. And bare all...

23rd May 2005, 11:57
I think Saddam should be paid royalties for his image being constantly used by the media..... and without authorisation!! Anyone else would expect the same, why should he be any different?

He will need the cash as he is obviously not going to swing and all his other savings and belongings have been stripped from him along with his jocks.

The guy is too old to get a regular job when he gets "out" so what's he supposed to do???

Ok he's beaten, don't kick a dog when he's down. Fair boody go.

23rd May 2005, 11:57
Whilst my heart hardly bleeds for Saddam, it did for Margaret Hassan, Ken Bigley & all the others who were abducted in the course of the Iraq war. The point for me is that it doesn't matter who is in 'nick', the treatment accorded should be to the dignity of all. After all, two wrongs...

Ropey Pilot
23rd May 2005, 12:02
During the war 'we' (ie the allies) were complaining about our POWs being shown to the world while simultaneously showing theirs - sometimes in the same news broadcast!

The Geneva convention is there for all to see, we can only be the 'goodies' and claim the moral high ground if we stick to the rules.

23rd May 2005, 12:15
But Para, had Sadaam continued to rule, Margaret Hassan, Ken Bigley & all the others who were abducted in the course of the Iraq war... would probably not have been abducted anyway, nor had any reason to be there in the first place (other than Margaret)?! Nor would their "abductors" have probably had the opportunity of doing any abducting before they were whisked off to a swift, if not exactly painless end by Sadaam's security services, very probably.

Surely, you were thinking of Sadaam's earlier opponents...the Kurds, the Marsh Arabs etc., and all the Iraqis who took up arms just after GWI because they were under the impression that the cavalry would not be long in arriving...?! :confused: ;)

23rd May 2005, 12:23
I think Saddam should have been left in charge. Things weren't so bad then as long as no one tried to run his sandpit.

The US could've just informed him they'd bomb him into the stone-age if he showed any signs of using WMDs and everyone would've been happy. Buy his oil..... sweet. Everyone wins.

Maybe if they put him back in his seat all this mayhem would stop. Tidy him up, let him comb his hair, etc. Stop making him wash his own jox.

23rd May 2005, 12:28
Well airship, I didn't think the war was justified, but we live in the world we live in no?

Which is why I thnk Scrubed's post shows him not to be a Kurd or a marsh arab for sure.:rolleyes:

23rd May 2005, 12:47
Does the Geneva Convention apply to a civilian organisation like The Sun? I guess the contravention would have been at the point the guard took the photo and then sent it on to the media.

High Wing Drifter
23rd May 2005, 12:48
The US crying over the Geneva Convention. Give me a friggin break!!!

Buy his oil..... sweet. Everyone wins.
Not quite. You see the Frenchies and Ruskies had already bought significant commitments to much of Sadam's Oil, hence their anti-war protests...they lost the billions they invested.

23rd May 2005, 12:58
It is an outrage that Saddam's pictures were printed by the Sun. Now his character has been sullied beyond all comprehension. No longer can he hold his head high among his peers, such as Gaddafi and Mugabi. Because of the publishing of that photo he no longer commands the respect he once enjoyed. No, his image is tarnashed, his character blighted. Pay up Sun, you have gone too far this time.:rolleyes:


Conan The Barber
23rd May 2005, 13:09
Yes, standards are good and double standards are twice as good.

23rd May 2005, 13:13
the Frenchies and Ruskies ......lost the billions they investedExactly. Everyone wins!!

Spuds McKenzie
23rd May 2005, 13:34
I don't think he's more powerful than the sun, but maybe more powerful than The Sun...


Alpha Leader
23rd May 2005, 14:51
Very careful, folks..... anything with a bias against Saddam Hussein and/or his French lawyers will be deemed bigoted by the Moderator:yuk:

23rd May 2005, 14:56
Not true, Alpha Leader. Anything that shows the racism against the French that you have demonstrated in the past will be considered racist. The moderators here do an excellent job attempting simultaneously to demonstrate political neutrality, enforcing the PPRuNe rules and encouraging debate while keeping it entertaining, polite and non-abusive - not an easy tightrope to walk.

So please stow your nonsense. Just because they don't share your bias doesn't mean they are biased the other way.

23rd May 2005, 15:05
The White House outrage over Saddam's lingerie pics were crocodile tears. Too little, too late. Is Rove getting rusty lately?

23rd May 2005, 15:06
Since someone else brought it up, perhaps for their next frontpage exclusive, the "publication that reaches the darkest spots that few other publications reach...", could shed some light on just how it is that people like Mugabe in Zimbabwe, Gaddafi in Libya and Karimoc in Uzbekistan all continue to confound all us cynics and manage to just "keep on truckin'"?! :rolleyes: