IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> Hydrogenaudio Forum Rules

- No Warez. This includes warez links, cracks and/or requests for help in getting illegal software or copyrighted music tracks!
- No Spamming or Trolling on the boards, this includes useless posts, trying to only increase post count or trying to deliberately create a flame war.
- No Hateful or Disrespectful posts. This includes: bashing, name-calling or insults directed at a board member.
- Click here for complete Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Saddam Hussein Captured, In Tikrit, in a hole under a cellar...
ScorLibran
post Dec 14 2003, 13:46
Post #1





Group: Banned
Posts: 769
Joined: 1-July 03
Member No.: 7495



Finally.

****************************************************************************************
****************************************************************************************
BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. military captured Saddam Hussein alive in his hometown of Tikrit on Sunday, eight months after the fall of Baghdad, the Iraqi Governing Council said. Celebratory gunfire erupted in Baghdad.

The statement said Saddam was captured in a joint operation by troops from the U.S.-led coalition and Kurdish Iraqi forces.

"He was wearing a fake beard and laboratory tests have proven his identity beyond any doubt," said the statement.

U.S. officials said only that the U.S. military captured a man in the basement of a building in Tikrit during raids seeking Saddam and that initial efforts to verify his identity indicate he is the deposed Iraqi dictator.

"It certainly looks good," one senior U.S. official said, cautioning more scientific testing, possibly DNA, was being done early Sunday morning to try to confirm the identity.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair welcomed Saddam's capture.

"This is very good news for the people of Iraq. It removes the shadow that has been hanging over them for too long of the nightmare of a return to the Saddam regime," he said in a statement released by his office.

Saddam was trapped in a cellar, dug a hole and buried himself as U.S. soldiers moved into the house where he was hiding, an Iraqi official said Sunday.

"The American soldiers had to use shovels to dig him out," Entifadh Qanbar, spokesman for Governing Council member Ahmad Chalabi, told The Associated Press.

Qanbar, basing his account on reports from members of the U.S.-led occupation authority, said Saddam had a salt-and-pepper beard when he was captured. Soldiers photographed him, shaved the beard and photographed him again before running DNA tests, he said.

"The DNA test confirmed 100 percent Saddam Hussein's identity," he said.

Qanbar said the capture took place "in a town very close to Tikrit," Saddam's hometown 100 miles north of Baghdad.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 2003 Associated Press.


****************************************************************************************
****************************************************************************************
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MachineHead
post Dec 14 2003, 14:06
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 403
Joined: 17-September 02
From: Hell
Member No.: 3380



This should be good. HA is gonna be a mess for about a month now....


--------------------
Looking for a digital idiot? Look no further.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gandhi
post Dec 14 2003, 14:24
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 21-February 03
Member No.: 5104



Now, let us just hope that both saddam and bush will be put to trail by International Court of Justice.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Latexxx
post Dec 14 2003, 14:30
Post #4


A/V Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 858
Joined: 12-May 03
From: Finland
Member No.: 6557



It took quite a while before this news item hit HA. I knew about this in the morning (Eastern European Time). Osama should be captured now and put to the same cell with Saddam and Bush.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ScorLibran
post Dec 14 2003, 14:48
Post #5





Group: Banned
Posts: 769
Joined: 1-July 03
Member No.: 7495



QUOTE (Latexxx @ Dec 14 2003, 08:30 AM)
It took quite a while before this news item hit HA. I knew about this in the morning (Eastern European Time). Osama should be captured now and put to the same cell with Saddam and Bush.

I was completely surprised to see no threads about it. I had been reading about it for hour-and-a-half when I checked HA. Out of disbelief, I checked News Submissions, Validated News, and did a search. Never expected I'd be the thread creator.

Hmmm...putting Bush, Hussein and bin Laden in a room together? Saddam and Osama would die within two minutes. Both would suffocate under the incredible weight of Bush's giant ego. tongue.gif



The above is a joke...I'm not anti-Bush, or pro-Bush either for that matter. I keep my serious political opinions to myself whenever possible, and limit myself to sharing news items, and humor relating to them.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Negative Zero
post Dec 15 2003, 05:49
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 248
Joined: 16-March 02
From: Toronto, Ontario
Member No.: 1534



Give me a break. Rather than commenting on the significance of a major criminal's capture, people here take cheap shots at a U.S. president that's done more to fight terror than any other political figure in the world. I suppose we'd all be better off just letting the terrorists run wild, right? dry.gif

This post has been edited by Negative Zero: Dec 15 2003, 05:50


--------------------
http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com
"I triple-guarantee you this is the best web site ever!"
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TwoJ
post Dec 15 2003, 08:04
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 357
Joined: 21-April 03
Member No.: 6110



I don't usually get involve with these discussions because people usually have there set point of views and even after given a different perspective it usually doesn't change them.
However the american media has done an excellent job of filtering news that the majority of americans watch and so to give some of the "facts" that are available on the internet but are not reported or discussed in mainstream media.

You may be interested to visit Micheal Rupert's 'From the Wilderness' webpage at;
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/index.html

He has a great video (truth & lies of 9/11) and website - and there is $1000 if you can disprove any of facts in the video. In the video he also does some quoting from a very well done biography of George Bush (Sr.) for example;

The Grandfather - Prescott Bush
"The business relationships established by Bush (Prescott Bush- grandfather to president)in 1923 continued even after the war started until they became so offensive and overt as to warrant seizure by the U.S. government under the Trading with the Enemy Act in 1942.
In 1942, "Under the Trading with the Enemy Act, the government took over Union Banking Corporation, in which Bush was a director. The U.S. Alien Property Custodian seized Union Banking Corp.'s stock shares..."

The Father - George Herbert Walker Bush
"father of our current President - authorized a series of programs that not only armed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein but also provided him with technology that assisted in his development of chemical weapons like Sarin gas, and biological weapons, which he still possesses"
"ABC News Nightline opened last June 9 with words to make the heart stop "It is becoming increasingly clear" said a grave Ted Koppel, "that George Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into the aggressive power that the United States ultimately had to destroy..."

Finally the son -
Did you ever wonder why the US invaded Afghanistan? To fight terrorists you say.
"Poppy cultivation in Afghanistan doubled between 2002 and 2003 to a level 36 times higher than in the last year of rule by the Taliban, according to White House figures released Friday.""The Taliban was cracking down on poppy production in the year before the U.S. military drove the movement out of office in late 2001 in response to its friendship and cooperation with the al Qaeda organization of Osama bin Laden."
Or the invasion of Iraq?
"According to the CIA itself, Iraq does not pose a threat to the West. A week after the axis of evil speech, the New York Times reported that 'the CIA has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the spy agency also is convinced that Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to al-Qaeda or related terrorist groups.'"6

I could go on quoting but I think this would be enough to maybe give you the idea that the US President is not the knight in shining armour agaist the evil terrorists around the world. If Bush has to fight terrorists now it is because of his (and previous administrations, especially his fathers) foreign policy. I will let you judge - i hope you read some of the material in the links and decide for yourself. For me there are far too many "facts" that prove to me that Gorge Bush's "war on drugs,terrorism,anti-americanism,etc" is just a smoke screen for implementing the administrations real policies. I think if you really read what the president has being doing I think you will find the difference between him & hussain & bin laden are smaller than you might like.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Latexxx
post Dec 15 2003, 10:13
Post #8


A/V Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 858
Joined: 12-May 03
From: Finland
Member No.: 6557



QUOTE (TwoJ @ Dec 15 2003, 09:04 AM)
You may be interested to visit Micheal Rupert's 'From the Wilderness' webpage at;
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/index.html

That is one of those nice anti government pages which are lying all over the internet. It might be better just ask yourself "why?" when watching news. Think why they are reporting what they say and what kind of image they are pushing.
A goos example of "filtering" in the US media was the bombing in Afghanistan some time ago. Foxnews(from satellite) said that American plane bombed a building in which was located a taleba leader and that the talebam leader was killed on the strike. Later on the same news they said as a side note that American military sources have said that they are investigating the claims that the were kids on the area and that the kids died in the strike.
In the Europe the news was that chlidren died in an American air strike and that Americans also claim that there was a taleban leader on the area.
The two news have completely different point of view. Both of them are trying to change opinions of the tv watchers. It is always good to read/watch/listen the news from more than one source.
This thing is now getting completely off-topic and maybe somebody should close/delete this thread.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ScorLibran
post Dec 15 2003, 10:33
Post #9





Group: Banned
Posts: 769
Joined: 1-July 03
Member No.: 7495



**attempts desperately to drag thread back on-topic...**

OK, how about opinions on what should happen now, considering the latest events:

A> Where should Saddam Hussein be tried?

--- 1. The Hague
--- 2. Baghdad
--- 3. Washington, D.C.
--- 4. Tel Aviv

B> Should President Bush also be tried for war crimes based specifically on U.S. involvement in Iraq?

--- 1. Yes
--- 2. No

C> How much longer should coalition forces remain in Iraq?

--- 1. They should leave now.
--- 2. They should remain until most of the current violence ends.
--- 3. They should remain until Iraq can govern itself and protect itself militarily.
--- 4. They should remain indefinitely as a "peace-keeping" force.

D> Should it be required that debts Saddam Hussein incurred with other countries be paid back by the "new Iraq"?

--- 1. Yes
--- 2. No
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
fewtch
post Dec 15 2003, 11:40
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 1460
Joined: 5-February 02
From: Seattle WA. USA
Member No.: 1261



Hmmm...

(A) Baghdad (he'd probably be treated better in Washington, DC though)
(B) He probably should, but won't of course. At minimum, the real reasons for starting the "war" should be studied more carefully by a lot of people...
(C ) (2) or (3)
(D) Depends on the country and their response... so my answer is "you can't require it either way." Probably many debts will be dropped, and a few will remain.

This post has been edited by fewtch: Dec 15 2003, 11:42


--------------------
Bring back dynamic range... www.loudnessrace.net
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Latexxx
post Dec 15 2003, 16:23
Post #11


A/V Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 858
Joined: 12-May 03
From: Finland
Member No.: 6557



2 He will propably be sentenced to death by some "independent" court which claims to have no connection to the Bush administration.
1
2/3
D: No comments
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TwoJ
post Dec 15 2003, 17:25
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 357
Joined: 21-April 03
Member No.: 6110



*boots topic of road again* cool.gif
QUOTE
That is one of those nice aniti government pages which are lying all over the internet

As I said there is a $1000 for you if you can prove they are "lying", and if you care to read the information what you call "anti-government" is asking why the administration does certain things such as, if basically the whole reason to invade iraq was to find & destroy WMD so that they can't be used by terrorist (so the story they sold to the US & UK & et al), then to find no WMD (almost inconceivable after the quantity they talked about before the war), why will the administration not accept that they invaded another country without reason?
This is akin in the american justice system to having the government (ATF, FBI, local law) enter and search the house of a known drug dealer, find no drugs or other illegal stuff, throw the guy in jail & sell his house. However in the trial the court system would never accept such an act without proof of illegal material found in the house - the whole thing would be thrown out for lack of evidence and the guy could probably sue the invaders for a couple of reason (unlawful search & seizure, wrongful arrest, etc). However because things are different on a global scale, no one is about to suggest that someone invade the US to capture bush et al & put them on trial (like they did with Noriega). The lies are usually done by the administration which talks about "justice & peace" and then commits almost every international crime to achive this for US citizens. Just to set a point I do not consider myself anti-government or anti-US, or pro-whatever, I think that the system has been setup (administration to media) to pablum feed the US public to the point where they will accept pretty much anything the govenment accepts to throw on them.
One of the most memorable speechs given was of walter cronkite, anchor of ABC IIRC, who said the days of true journalism are past, the icon of american news saying this - i think that should say something about who is lying.

*boots himself back*
A-1 - The UN would have to be involved to give it credability
B-1 - pointless though - it would never happen
C-3 - Although I think they should put a time limit like 6 months, 1 year
D-undecided - probably since they will have future oil revenues
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ScorLibran
post Dec 15 2003, 17:54
Post #13





Group: Banned
Posts: 769
Joined: 1-July 03
Member No.: 7495



QUOTE (Latexxx @ Dec 15 2003, 10:23 AM)
2 He will propably be sentenced to death by some "independent" court which claims to have no connection to the Bush administration.

I heard some government representative saying yesterday that Iraq doesn't actually have a death penalty, so if found guilty and sentenced in Baghdad, I assume the most he'd get would be prison (unless they give us a really crafty explanation otherwise). wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mobius
post Dec 15 2003, 21:47
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 115
Joined: 3-December 02
From: Exeter, RI, US
Member No.: 3971



QUOTE (ScorLibran @ Dec 14 2003, 07:46 AM)
British Prime Minister Tony Blair welcomed Saddam's capture.

Abzurd.

That's like saying, "The Prime Minister enjoys lunch." Who wouldn't "welcome" such news?


--------------------
Gur svggrfg funyy fheivir lrg gur hasvg znl yvir. Jr zhfg ercrng.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Audible!
post Dec 15 2003, 23:04
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 523
Joined: 28-June 03
From: CA, USA
Member No.: 7426



QUOTE
I suppose we'd all be better off just letting the terrorists run wild, right?


I'm not going to hijack or sidetrack this thread, but I'd just like to make something clear - Saddam Hussein was not affiliated with Al Qaeda. The innuendo originally used to justify the invasion of Iraq has to my knowledge been entirely refuted.
The "meeting in Prague" never took place. This was shown definitively within a month or so arfter it was originally mentioned. The Vice President in his infinite wisdom brought it up again many months later, but it was no more true then. This is also why the justification for the invasion has changed subtly several times.
Make no mistake, Saddam Hussein is a dirty, murderous, despotic bastard, and the world is better off without him in power. He's just not much of an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist, he's more of a brutal fascist dictator. One whom had the strong backing of the US and several other 'free' western powers before and during his nasty massacres of the Kurds and Iranians. We felt at the time that he was a good counterbalance for the insurgent Islamic "Republic" of Iran.

This is why he should be tried at The Hague and nowhere else.
The people and corporations who supported his (successful) efforts to acquire chemical weapons manufacturing facilities should be tried as accessories and punished to the fullest extent of international law.
Of course, this undoubtedly includes several very important and influential members of the business and political community here, in France, in Germany, in Canada, and in the UK.
Therefore I believe he will never see a crimes against humanity trial at the world court. That and the current US Presidents complete disdain for international rules and/or 'regumalations'.

I do not believe Bush should be tried for war crimes since I doubt it was his say-so that led to the extensive and totally unecessary deployment and use of cluster bombs in heavily populated areas. He simply would not have been that involved in the minuteae of the military planning.

I don't know anyone who is half-sane who would suggest trying Hussein in Tel Aviv. Hussein would probably welcome that, but he was not an aggressor against Israel at any point in time (they did blow up his half-built nuke plant once, that was about the extent of it), and would use the venue to try to make himself a "big man" in the eyes of the Arab world, something he has always wanted to do but continuouslt failed at.
No, let him rot in front of the world court. The best gift we can give the people of Iraq at this point is to rebuild their infrastructure (some of which, especially the municipal water treatment plants, we definitely shouldnt have bombed again, or the first time, or the second time), and do it as effectively and inexpensively as possible. Then we need to finish setting up a government there and get the hell out.
I favor a multiparty coalition-building democracy like in the Israeli Knesset.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TwoJ
post Dec 15 2003, 23:37
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 357
Joined: 21-April 03
Member No.: 6110



Good points Audible, however I take exception to
QUOTE
I do not believe Bush should be tried for war crimes since I doubt it was his say-so that led to the extensive and totally unecessary deployment and use of cluster bombs in heavily populated areas. He simply would not have been that involved in the minuteae of the military planning.


George Bush as Commander in Chief of US Forces by law is directly responcible for the actions of those under him, unless they directly disobeyed his orders. Whether he actually pushed the button or told someone else to push the button or gave permission for someone else to tell someone to push the button equates down to the same responcibility.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Audible!
post Dec 16 2003, 00:25
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 523
Joined: 28-June 03
From: CA, USA
Member No.: 7426



The problem with such a hard-line TwoJ, is that most recent US presidents could be tried for war crimes as a result.
Bush Jr. for cluster-bombing civilian enclaves, Clinton for blowing up the pharma company in Sudan, as well as bombing the Baghdad municipal water supply, and Bush Sr. for any number of nasty things during his reign as the head of the CIA, as well as bombing the Baghdad municipal water supply.
Hell, every American president since Ford (excluding Bush Jr. and Clinton) could be tried for crimes against humanity for supporting the long-term Indonesian invasion and massacres in East Timor. If you wanted to extend it a bit you could prosecute the US media for not reporting said atrocities for more than 10 years.

The fact of the matter is that no one was ever prosecuted for the Nagasaki A-bombing or the Dresden firebombing, two obvious examples of Allied atrocities that were uncalled for and totally unecessary in WWII.

So, you're not going to be putting really powerful heads of state in front of the Hague unless you crush their country in a war.
Hell, Kissinger still walks around free, and tens of thousands or East Timorese (and if someone doesnt care about them because of their racial characteristics, they're mostly catholic) are dead largely because of his and Fords go-ahead.

This post has been edited by Audible!: Dec 16 2003, 00:26
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Canar
post Dec 16 2003, 05:10
Post #18





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3327
Joined: 26-July 02
From: princegeorge.ca
Member No.: 2796



QUOTE (Negative Zero @ Dec 14 2003, 08:49 PM)
Rather than commenting on the significance of a major criminal's capture, people here take cheap shots at a U.S. president that's done more to fight terror than any other political figure in the world.

I know this is going off-topic; the mods may want to split this thread, I dunno... Admittedly, it's in the off-topic forum, so I don't know where it would be split to. tongue.gif

Define "terror". You could also feasibly say that the Bush administration has done a lot to limit individual freedoms as well. The only way you'll stop an ideology is to control the thoughts of the people. Anyone could have hijacked those planes that crashed into the WTC. You cannot stop terrorists. They will kill people regardless of how much security and freedom-limitations you throw onto the populace.

The problems lie in the Islamic radicals that do these atrocities. (Not Islam itself, most Muslims would agree with the terrorists' actions as much as modern Christians would agree with Hitler's allegedly Christian policy.) Likewise, repressive, pseudo-theological policies in undemocratic states breed intolerance and hatred for Western culture. Insofar as they're creating democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan, I support the USA. I disagree with their methods of doing so, but it's a job that must be undertaken if we want to help lower the amount of terrorism occurring.

To say that Bush himself is responsible for these policies is absurd. It's instead the ministers Bush is associated with, et al., making the decisions. I'd imagine that Bush goes to Daddy regularly to ask advice.

Bush does come off as a bit of a moron. From speeches that he doesn't appear to properly comprehend to his dyslexic mixups in speeches to obviously scripted prose and expression in tone to his inability to give any sort of rousing impromptu address, he seems much more like a well-trained monkey reciting lines than a man with power. Remember, he's not the only one making decisions; there are plenty of people behind the scenes who are making decisions for Bush.


--------------------
∑:<
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TwoJ
post Dec 16 2003, 06:38
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 357
Joined: 21-April 03
Member No.: 6110



QUOTE
The problem with such a hard-line TwoJ, is that most recent US presidents could be tried for war crimes as a result

Yes this is true, at the WWII trials when most of the SS & others were asked why they did what they did the most answer was "I was following orders", this was not accepted as a valid reason then and it should not be accepted now. The president decided to lauch an attack on Iraq long before they schemed up these WMD (As one cartoon put it - Tony Blair whispering in the ear of george bush - 'how do you know he has WMD? - george - "well he couldn't have used all the stuff my father sold him by now!) We must all accept the concerquences of are actions, even the president of the US. If no WMD are found in Iraq does a premeditated invasion of a country sound like a crime to you, does to me.

QUOTE
So, you're not going to be putting really powerful heads of state in front of the Hague unless you crush their country in a war

Yes, well i think that is the point. The US has 'might makes right' and that has been their policy since post WWII. No one is about to invade any industrial nation that might lead to WWIII, but countries like Panama, Nicaragua, Chili, Congo, Afghanistan, Iraq -that have no possibility to defend themself against a superpower are fair game. The only people that can really change the US administration to say we do not approve of your actions, is the US population, hence the propaganda and news filtering to get the population to accept almost anything the govenment proposes.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sthayashi
post Dec 16 2003, 15:19
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 494
Joined: 16-April 03
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Member No.: 5997



QUOTE (Audible! @ Dec 15 2003, 05:04 PM)
I don't know anyone who is half-sane who would suggest trying Hussein in Tel Aviv. Hussein would probably welcome that, but he was not an aggressor against Israel at any point in time (they did blow up his half-built nuke plant once, that was about the extent of it), and would use the venue to try to make himself a "big man" in the eyes of the Arab world, something he has always wanted to do but continuouslt failed at.

One slight error, Saddam Hussein DID sponsor terrorist orgs in Israel. Make no mistake, Israel doesn't like this guy very much. But having him tried there would make him an unlikely martyr in the eyes of the Islamic countries, since they all hate Israel more than they hated Iraq.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mobius
post Dec 16 2003, 16:09
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 115
Joined: 3-December 02
From: Exeter, RI, US
Member No.: 3971



QUOTE (sthayashi @ Dec 16 2003, 09:19 AM)
QUOTE (Audible! @ Dec 15 2003, 05:04 PM)
   I don't know anyone who is half-sane who would suggest trying Hussein in Tel Aviv. Hussein would probably welcome that, but he was not an aggressor against Israel at any point in time (they did blow up his half-built nuke plant once, that was about the extent of it), and would use the venue to try to make himself a "big man" in the eyes of the Arab world, something he has always wanted to do but continuouslt failed at.

One slight error, Saddam Hussein DID sponsor terrorist orgs in Israel. Make no mistake, Israel doesn't like this guy very much. But having him tried there would make him an unlikely martyr in the eyes of the Islamic countries, since they all hate Israel more than they hated Iraq.

I recall back in '91 Saddam fired many SCUD missles into Israel. If that's not direct aggression I don't know what is.

This post has been edited by mobius: Dec 16 2003, 16:21


--------------------
Gur svggrfg funyy fheivir lrg gur hasvg znl yvir. Jr zhfg ercrng.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Audible!
post Dec 16 2003, 22:48
Post #22





Group: Members
Posts: 523
Joined: 28-June 03
From: CA, USA
Member No.: 7426



QUOTE
I recall back in '91 Saddam fired many SCUD missles into Israel. If that's not direct aggression I don't know what is.


That's a good point I recall that. His actions may have had a little something to do with other major events that were taking place at the same time, a war involving Israel's closest ally and his own country. "Naked agression" it was not, rather a shoddy and stupidly thought-out attempt at deterrence.
In fact deterrence might be the wrong word. If Israel had gotten involved in Gulf War, The Movie: Part 1, Hussein had every reason to believe that other Arab countries would attempt to aid him, either covertly or overtly. Perhaps an attempt at provocation is a better phrase.

QUOTE
One slight error, Saddam Hussein DID sponsor terrorist orgs in Israel.


"Sponsor" is the wrong word for what he did. Saddam paid off the families of suicide bombers to the tune of about $10,000 after the fact. He was not invloved in training, infiltration or logistics, simply bribery for (arab) public opinion.
10,000 is a whole lot of money to anyone in an area where 80% or so of the population is below the poverty line. Ultimately it was completely self-serving, and I recall seeing parents of a suicide bomber saying just that in an interview (not that they were going to reject the money).

QUOTE
The only people that can really change the US administration to say we do not approve of your actions, is the US population, hence the propaganda and news filtering to get the population to accept almost anything the govenment proposes.


Have you been watching FOX news? wink.gif
I don't think you can isolate this phenomenon to just the US. Berlusconi is still the Italian Prime Minister last time I checked, and his vast media holdings may have had a little something to do with this.
Hell, I recall Noam Chomsky talking about the Canadian media - he said whenever he was commenting on US issues the CBC was happy to have him on whenever he wanted to be, but when he started talking about Canadian issues, they no longer welcomed him, for some strange reason.
It's human nature to like to listen to the dirt on other countries, but when it's your own country, you plug your ears....

edited: added second paragraph in commentaries

edit #2: This is a good assessment about the responses seen in the media and in general, I think:
LINK

This post has been edited by Audible!: Dec 17 2003, 04:04
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TwoJ
post Dec 17 2003, 07:03
Post #23





Group: Members
Posts: 357
Joined: 21-April 03
Member No.: 6110



No I rarely watch mainstream media these days - seems pretty pointless, sort of like talking to someone who constantly tells you half-truths.

I don't isolate this to the US, but i did watch the BBC during the first week of the invasion of Iraq and they were asking much more relevant questions like "why did the americans build a $1billion "operations center" (from which they directed the wars - a lot of bradcasts were from there) months before they even mentioned about invading iraq?", while the US media was busy talking to some general about how fast the tanks could move and whether the heat was a problem for them!
Nevertheless the places you can find relatively unfiltered news is far and few between.
The media here in Canada is not much better and there are many (many) problems here as well, but I do think that, although controverial, the decision to stay out of the war was the right choice, although now the US has given a cold-shoulder to countries like Canada, France, Germany because they did not participate in their war. To me this just shows how immature the US administration can be.
I was mentioning the US media because Canadian, UK, or Italian news doesn't have much impact on the US population.
I don't like to hear any dirt on any country - but I think it is our responcibilty to be aware of it and to act on it if possible, especially in your own country! I am not a US citizen and therefore I have no say in how they govern or run things there.

In the video there is a great quote "On what meat does our mighty Ceasar feed?", which I think is such an appropriate remark on Bush
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Latexxx
post Dec 17 2003, 16:44
Post #24


A/V Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 858
Joined: 12-May 03
From: Finland
Member No.: 6557



QUOTE (Audible! @ Dec 16 2003, 01:25 AM)
The problem with such a hard-line TwoJ, is that most recent US presidents could be tried for war crimes as a result.

This is true. Almost every American president has done something which can be counted as a war crime. Maybe this tells us something important about American way of hadling problems. Justice is always the justice of the winner. After second world war Germans were prosecuted for all sorts of war crimes(I'm not talking about the holocaust). Nobody blame Americans when they bombed Dresden (over 100 000 people killed in one night, no military or industrial targets were in the city), Hiroshima(over 80 000 people killed and more than 100 000 injured) and Nakasagi(over 36 000 people died). Maybe there is a problem with the attitude of the Americans if practically all of their presidents have committed war crimes.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Audible!
post Dec 17 2003, 23:46
Post #25





Group: Members
Posts: 523
Joined: 28-June 03
From: CA, USA
Member No.: 7426



QUOTE
Almost every American president has done something which can be counted as a war crime. Maybe this tells us something important about American way of hadling problems. Justice is always the justice of the winner.


Well, prior to the Geneva convention you'd have a hard time convincing anyone that American presidents (with the possible exception of McKinley b/c of the Phillipines invasion) were on par with the European colonial powers of the day.
Prior to the Geneva convention the term war crimes was just not really used. There were winners and there were the dead. The British empire in particular, along with the Dutch, Spainish, Portuguese, French and German colonialists, were far nastier at the turn of the century, and up until at least the 1940's .

I think the lesson has a LOT more to do with power than it does with nationality. The British starvation of both the Irish and the Indians (hiding behind the excuse of the "free market") resulted in vast amounts of deaths and emigrations that are nearly unmatched in history. Indeed, while the genocide of the native Americans in this country was on par in terms of nastiness with anything Cecil Rhodes did in Africa, a lot of it was done unintentionally by microbiological proxy.

If you want to talk about just the twentieth century, the Japanese, Germans and the British are at the top of the list with us Americans (probably above us) in terms of foul deeds committed. The Russians aren't far behind, but they largely did it to themselves (and the Finns, and Estonians and Poles, etc.).
What the Japanese did to almost the entire East coast of the Asian continent (especially Manchuria and the city of Nanking) is so disgusting they basically refuse to allow it to be taught in school. Germany at least acknolwedges the horror of the Holocaust.
I think the main reason the US has been able to do some of the particularly ugly things we've done in the last forty years is because we now have the power to do it.

Don't kid yourself that your own country would be immune from the same kind of self-induced pomposity and disregard for human life for the sake of some absurd 'principle' if it were in a position to do so. Once in power, any nation will wish to remain there and will be willing to do so by hook or by crook. This is the corruptive nature of power on those who wield it, not the inherent nature of any particular group of people.
edited for spelling and redundancy

This post has been edited by Audible!: Dec 18 2003, 02:05
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th April 2014 - 02:50