Page 1 of 2
Those pics of Saddam Hussein . . .
Posted: Sat 21 May, 2005 10.07
by DJGM
As we know, The Sun yesterday, published pictures of deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in his prison
cell awaiting whatever fate has in store for him. This included the controversial (and somewhat gross) pic
of the former despot standing in his undergarments, taking up the entire front page of the paper.
Do you think publishing these photos was right or wrong? Should this person be humiliated in such a
way, despite the fact that these photos may have contravened aspects of the Geneva Convention.
IMHO, although these photos are controversial, and The Sun will probably get into trouble for going
ahead with publishing them, I beleive that considering what that man did to his people over the
years he was presiding over Iraq, this type of humiliation is the very least he deserves.
But, what do you think . . . ?
(EDIT - post edited to correct a couple of typos.)
Re: Those pics of Saddam Hussein . . .
Posted: Sat 21 May, 2005 11.09
by Sput
DJGM wrote: I beleive that considering what that man did to his people over the
years he was presiding over Iraq, this type of humiliation is the very least he deserves.
With that logic, you could argue for burning him alive, or some kind of Luxton viewing torment.
Re: Those pics of Saddam Hussein . . .
Posted: Sat 21 May, 2005 11.35
by jay
Sput wrote:DJGM wrote: I beleive that considering what that man did to his people over the
years he was presiding over Iraq, this type of humiliation is the very least he deserves.
With that logic, you could argue for burning him alive, or some kind of Luxton viewing torment.
And why shouldn't he be burned alive? I can't believe he is even given the chance to sue anybody, let alone The Sun for printing pictures of him. What has the world come to?
Posted: Sat 21 May, 2005 12.54
by Sput
Burning people alive is what he did, sure, but we're not him (I saw "we" yet am not thrilled at the prospect that it is kind of "us"). If we DID burn him alive then how are we any better? The trial isn't yet over. Punishment without a fair hearing is EXACTLY the sort of reason (well the backup fallback reason) that Iraq was invaded in the first place.
Also AFAIK you're not entitled to any winnings when you're in prison, so even if he did sue and was successful he wouldn't really gain much. There's a good chance that if (when) he's found guilty he'll probably die anyway, it's up to the Iraqis.
EDIT: Jay, I also like how you chose burning alive over Luxton viewing
No-one deserves Luxton viewing!
Posted: Sat 21 May, 2005 15.51
by jay
I see your point about making us no better than him - but people who do wrong on such a scale as this deserve to pay. whether it is moral or not. They had no problems in the old days when the death penalty existed.
I like what The Sun have said today though:
The Sun Says, Saturday May 21 wrote:
It is typical of the curious culture in the BBC Newsroom that they should get into such a tizzy about our pictures of Saddam Hussein.
One reporter asks a Sun executive if we have humiliated Saddam.
What preposterous nonsense.
Only someone recruited by an advert in the Guardian could have such a partial and polluted view of life.
Saddam ranks alongside Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Idi Amin as one of the world's most evil dictators.
Did he care about the human rights of the 300,000 Iraqis he gassed to death?
Or the prisoners he tortured? Or the women his son raped?
Crimes
Being snapped in his Y-fronts is the least of Saddam's worries as he faces a possible death sentencefor his crimes against his own people.
The Daily Mail, eager to air once again it's anti-war stance, compared our pictures to the Abu Graibh scandal - ignoring the fact that those pictures showed prisoners being abused, not doing their washing.
And The Guardian, not surprisingly, leapt at the chance to attack The Sun on its website.
Finally, the BBC couldn't even bring itself to recognise a journalistic scoop, carping that out pictures were "probably genuine".
No probably about it.
They are as genuine as our mistrust and despair at the BBC's inborn bias.
Posted: Sat 21 May, 2005 16.35
by James H
The Scum needs to piss off. The only reason they printed the pictures was so that people could have a laugh at Saddam doing his washing. It isn't even proper journalism. For fuck's sake, what's the world come to if we have to publish pictures of half-naked dictators for a cheap story?
Posted: Sat 21 May, 2005 20.11
by Bail
I think most readers were miffed at it being a old man in his pants, not the young ladys the readers have become acustomed to.
Posted: Sat 21 May, 2005 20.33
by Jamez
Apparently The Sun sold nearly 20 million copies yesterday, compared to its usual daily total of around 8 million.
Posted: Sat 21 May, 2005 22.12
by Lorns
God, those pics really put me of my breakfast yesterday..
Whether it was right or wrong,those pics done what the sun newspaper wanted to achieve and that was to sell millions of copies.
Mission accomplished!
Posted: Sat 21 May, 2005 22.23
by Orry Verducci
That is the kind of things The Sun has, including page 3
It sold the paper and gave them publicity (which they always are doing). Where I am, the people who don't like The Sun call it a 'rag'.
Posted: Sat 21 May, 2005 22.31
by Lorns
Where i come from the SUN newspaper is called one of three things:
The rag
A tabloid
(and more commonly): The Comic