This rat's better off dead

[Ins0mniac]

Even there in the Sunni triangle, most Iraqis were glad Hussein had gone, but they complained bitterly that things were worse. Their sons were unemployed, their homes violated and their women humiliated by patrolling soldiers. The Americans had brought them ruination and chaos.

On Tuesday, US troops in Fallujah killed another four men for demonstrating in his support, creating another 40 recruits to the resistance brigades. If US forces can kill Iraqis daily, with no judicial or disciplinary response, why are they fastidious about killing the one Iraqi whose mere existence inspires such anti-American hatred?

If the coalition can drop bombs on suspect houses in Tikrit and wipe out a dozen children in Afghanistan for possibly sheltering the Taliban, why go so gentle on Hussein?

The answer is that the desperate US boss in Baghdad, Paul Bremer, wanted to give Bush the prize of his mighty foe not as a corpse but as a broken man stumbling behind the presidential victory chariot. Hence Hussein's humiliation on television. Hence the flagrant breach of Geneva Convention rules against the use of prisoners for propaganda, a breach vehemently protested against by Britain and the US when Hussein did likewise.

There is to be no international jurisdiction allowed. The trial is to be an Iraqi affair, to mark "closure on the past" and initiate a spirit of reconciliation.

This is superficially curious. The US did not similarly trust the Serbs to try Slobodan Milosevic, although they had voted him from power themselves, enjoyed a democratic government and already had him under house arrest. Milosevic's crimes were against his own people. Yet his own people were not allowed to try him. Americans kidnapped him and spirited him away to The Hague.


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,8194426%5E7583,00.html

[asskickergod]

Originally posted by Ins0mniac
Hence the flagrant breach of Geneva Convention rules against the use of prisoners for propaganda, a breach vehemently protested against by Britain and the US when Hussein did likewise.

Huh? When was he humiliated on television? How is merely showing him on TV to prove his capture propaganda?

[Ins0mniac]

Originally posted by asskickergod
Huh? When was he humiliated on television? How is merely showing him on TV to prove his capture propaganda?


I don't know. Ask the guy that wrote the fucking article.

I'd say he's refering to the way the Americans were going on about the Iraqis showing the American captives as being "humiliated" and "propoganda".

Anyway, is that the only comment you can make about the article? It really wasn't the point the article was making.

[asskickergod]

I was asking the guy who started a fucking discussion thread about it asshole. If you don't understand it yourself then why the hell would you post it? I didn't know if the guy knows about some other TV broadcast that I didn't see or if he was just blowing shit out of proportion to make his standpoint look more important. That was my initial reaction to the article but I didn't want to open my mouth about something I didn't fully understand. You on the other hand seem perfectly content to belch out some crap editorial from a sensationalist hack and expect everyone to accept it at face value. Well, I'm sorry I didn't fit into your target demographic.

[Ins0mniac]

Originally posted by asskickergod
I was asking the guy who started a fucking discussion thread about it asshole. If you don't understand it yourself then why the hell would you post it? I didn't know if the guy knows about some other TV broadcast that I didn't see or if he was just blowing shit out of proportion to make his standpoint look more important. That was my initial reaction to the article but I didn't want to open my mouth about something I didn't fully understand. You on the other hand seem perfectly content to belch out some crap editorial from a sensationalist hack and expect everyone to accept it at face value. Well, I'm sorry I didn't fit into your target demographic.

Fuck off AKG. The only time you ever make a post is to start a flame war. People once thought you were funny.

But frankly, people are over your retarded "flame wars".


Do you ever make posts not related to flaming? Seriously, I'm just curious.



And as far as the topic.

WHat you're arguing really is besides the point. He may be overreacting on the whole "Saddam was humiliated" thing. But that was really beside the point if you're intelligent enough to understand what the guy is fucking talking about.

it's not saying Saddam is a nice guy. It's not really even saying the U.S sucks, so get off your high fucking horse, stop assuming everything is anti-American and fuck off.

[Ins0mniac]

And for the record, I don't give a fuck what happens to Saddam.

Just because I post an opinion piece doesn't automatically mean I agree with every little side issue the author writes. I think it was a good piece though and I find the overall points interesting.

Maybe I should write a disclaimer every time I post someone elses opinon piece to help calm whining little retards.

No fuck it, I don't need to justify myself to such a fuckwit.

[nosedog]

hey akg lets flamewar ok you start kthxbye

[Ins0mniac]

Originally posted by nosedog
hey akg lets flamewar ok you start kthxbye

Yeah, I don't know what set him off. I think I used the 'F' word. He's a sensitive soul.

[nosedog]

but I actually want to flamewar :(

[Ins0mniac]

Originally posted by nosedog
but I actually want to flamewar :(

LOL. No, not when people argue about something that nobody in the thread thought in the first place and wasn't even the main point of a fucking post!

LOL.

Too easy. I swear AKG is losing it.

No. And just to explain it.

The article is mainly about whether they should have just killed the fucker or not. Doens't have any sympathy for him. Doesn't really bash the U.S (well no more than can be helped).

*shrugs*

He just went on his little reactionary fanboy speech.

[Sutter]

Just to had my 2 cents; The Iraqis showed a few American soldiers they had captured on TV, America called this a breach of the Geneva convention - using captured people for propoganda.
1.It came not long after Americans bombed a prison camp of 200, because 10 had guns.
2 Fighters from Afghanistan are still locked up without charge in Guantanemo(?) Bay and are not considered POW's
3 because America didn't declare war.
4 America showed Sadam on TV and had a grinning press conference.

Now, here's a bunch of breachs going on all over the fucking place, just thought I'd point them out.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I fucking hate Sadam and the Taliban, but it doesn't allow America to do whatever the fuck it wants.

[Ins0mniac]

Originally posted by Sutter
Just to had my 2 cents; The Iraqis showed a few American soldiers they had captured on TV, America called this a breach of the Geneva convention - using captured people for propoganda.
1.It came not long after Americans bombed a prison camp of 200, because 10 had guns.
2 Fighters from Afghanistan are still locked up without charge in Guantanemo(?) Bay and are not considered POW's
3 because America didn't declare war.
4 America showed Sadam on TV and had a grinning press conference.

Now, here's a bunch of breachs going on all over the fucking place, just thought I'd point them out.


Exactly, but this wasn't really even the point of the article. And I didn't nessessarily agree with the fact that some people think they're too hard on the Saddam fucker.

AKG just started foaming at the mouth as usual. *shrugs* Wasn't me.

P.S I think I'll start a new thread on this other topic.

[nosedog]

WHERE IS MY FLAMEWAR I ORDERED IT 2 HOURS AGO I HOPE YOU DON'T EXPECT ME TO PAY FOR IT.

[Ins0mniac]

Originally posted by nosedog
WHERE IS MY FLAMEWAR I ORDERED IT 2 HOURS AGO I HOPE YOU DON'T EXPECT ME TO PAY FOR IT.


LOL. Go start your own thread. :p

And wait for AKG to go online again.

[asskickergod]

How was my first post starting a flame war? I asked two simple questions and you started flying off the handle. Sorry, but if I read an article and the author is apparently lying to me in the fourth paragraph it doesn't seem like a "good" article to me. So I stopped reading it and asked for some clarification to see if it was worth continuing, instead I got you saying "I don't fucking know ask the author, blah blah", like that was supposed to help. I know it's an editorial, but I don't think it's too much to ask for at least some shred of journalistic integrity in it. Like I said, I guess I wasn't in your desired target audience for this discussion. You were obviously looking for some other brain dead simps that you could sit around in circle jerk and congratulate each other in finding a new opinion to fondle yourselves over. Then I had to come by and ruin it all for you by asking a couple of questions, my bad.

[Ins0mniac]

Originally posted by asskickergod
How was my first post starting a flame war? I asked two simple questions and you started flying off the handle. Sorry, but if I read an article and the author is apparently lying to me in the fourth paragraph it doesn't seem like a "good" article to me. So I stopped reading it and asked for some clarification to see if it was worth continuing, instead I got you saying "I don't fucking know ask the author, blah blah", like that was supposed to help. I know it's an editorial, but I don't think it's too much to ask for at least some shred of journalistic integrity in it. Like I said, I guess I wasn't in your desired target audience for this discussion. You were obviously looking for some other brain dead simps that you could sit around in circle jerk and congratulate each other in finding a new opinion to fondle yourselves over. Then I had to come by and ruin it all for you by asking a couple of questions, my bad.

I wouldn't say your first post was a flame. More your second. *shrugs*

Anyway, you really think the guy is outright lying, deliberatly? Is it some conspiracy theory? Is the author secretly being funded by Al Quida or Saddam's evil henchmen? I would have thought "humiliation" is relative depending on who you ask. I'm sure in Saddam's eyes he was "humiliated". Not that I really care.

Fanboy.

It's not really such an anti-American or Saddam sympathising piece. I know it's hard to see through your "everything must be sprinkled with Bush rhetoric" eyes, but it's true. And maybe you'd rather he ommit bits that make the U.S look less than perfect, would that increase his "integrity"?

[asskickergod]

He may not be outright lying, but he's certainly bending the truth to make his points seem pertinent. If he has to be overly dramatic to get his points across it makes me think that his points aren't very well thought out and he's trying to compensate for it.

That's right, I must be a Bush fanboy. I mean it's not like I haven't directly insulted him recently (http://forums.zgeek.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14376). And of course I've never flamed anyone for being pro war either (http://forums.zgeek.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6269&perpage=15&pagenumber=6).

[Ins0mniac]

Originally posted by asskickergod
He may not be outright lying, but he's certainly bending the truth to make his points seem pertinent. If he has to be overly dramatic to get his points across it makes me think that his points aren't very well thought out and he's trying to compensate for it.
[/url].

But his main point is that the U.S and everyone would be better off if they just killed him outright rather than let this thing drag on. I don't see how the minor detail you mention is twisted to make this point?

A lot of people are saying bad stuff about the way Saddam was captured, even the pope for Christsake or at least Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, don't you get the paper? I don't personally agree with it all.


I think one of the big points is that the U.S were harping about it being "humiliating" under the Geneva convention for the Iraqis to even show an American prisoner of war. Which shows a bit of hypocracy how the Americans always hide behind the Geneva convention when it suits them and then forget about it when it's their turn. Not that I really care on the scale of things. But that's the argument many people are making.

[asskickergod]

That's a pretty rediculous point to try and make then. Is he trying to rewrite history? The man surrendered and he was taken prisoner. When did the US have the oppourtunity to kill him outright? Hell, there was controversy about his sons getting killed and they put up a fight. It wouldn't be good if US troops shot a surrendering man now would it?

Now they're trying to decide on where to try him. It looks like they're pushing to have it done in Iraq under the new government, which doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Some of the Iraqi councel members were hoping it would be underway within weeks, however I find that unlikely. They're still trying to milk Saddam for information about weapons that at this point don't seem to exist as that would go a long way to getting Bush reelected. Of course if they do exist it's probably not very good to have that shit just laying around.

[Ins0mniac]

Originally posted by asskickergod
That's a pretty rediculous point to try and make then. Is he trying to rewrite history? The man surrendered and he was taken prisoner. When did the US have the oppourtunity to kill him outright? Hell, there was controversy about his sons getting killed and they put up a fight. It wouldn't be good if US troops shot a surrendering man now would it?

Yeah. Just get the Iraqis to do the killing. Find him and send them in. Nobody would know. ;)

Anyway, he wasn't exactly critisising the U.S for not doing that. He was just making a hypothetical sort of point.

[Asmodeus]

how apologist of you. good backpedaling.

[DOGG]

AKG stop trying to tell people off for everything. You find the weakest point while ignoring the other, more important ones. 'Winning' an arguement won't change the reality of things. And you're the one who dramatises everything.

Other significant points the article made:

Paragraph 1: Even though saddam is gone, most iraqis were better off when he was around.

Paragraph 2: By killing iraqis, the US is just making more enemies. Soldiers don't get punished for killing innocents.

Paragraph 3: Bombing suspected militants might not be a good idea particularly if there are many children around.

Paragraph 6: Unless there is a puppet government in place, former leaders will be tried at the hague. Why is hussein treated differently to milosevic?

[asskickergod]

Oh, yet another troglodyte trying to tell me not to tell people off by trying to tell me off. And all because I asked two legitimate questions. Hooray for hypocrisy.

[Ins0mniac]

Originally posted by Asmodeus
how apologist of you. good backpedaling.

it may seem like backpedalling to you. But only because you misinterpreted my original intentions and motivations.

No actual backpedalling has taken place.

[DOGG]

Well, i dont think he was too humiliated. I for one would be going skitzo if they said they captured him but didnt show shit.

But yeah you've got ur mind made up already about what people think.

[Bifrost]

What. The. Fuck?

I hate all of this unnatural fence-sitting shit! I want polar views and explosive reactions dammit!!

Either you fucking love the war and want to suck Bush's cock because he's a living god or you hate everything about Bush, the war, America and menthol cigarettes and you want everyone related to the war soundly beaten and lynched.

It has now been made illegal not to have a single-minded opinion on the Iraq situation - you are all going to jail to be fat, hairy men's luscious cornholes.

I'm with nosedog - where's our fucking flamewar?

In the meantime, here's a tireless dancing banana:

:banana: