It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Paper publishes new Saddam photo

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2005 @ 01:23 AM
link   
A BRITISH newspaper that published photographs of Saddam Hussein in his prison cell has released another shot of the ex-dictator, along with pictures of two other former top members of his regime now also in custody.

Link

In Friday morning's edition, the newspaper - Britain's best-selling daily - ran a front-page cover of a bare-chested Saddam standing in white underwear, with the headline "Tyrant's in his pants




posted on May, 21 2005 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sth Hemisphere
A BRITISH newspaper that published photographs of Saddam Hussein in his prison cell has released another shot of the ex-dictator, along with pictures of two other former top members of his regime now also in custody.

Link

In Friday morning's edition, the newspaper - Britain's best-selling daily - ran a front-page cover of a bare-chested Saddam standing in white underwear, with the headline "Tyrant's in his pants




The story and photos broke on a Rupurt Murdoch owned paper.
They are saying it 'may' cause more 'unrest' in Iraq which is exactly what the US want since they are stiring the population to create a civil war, a 500 year old war tatic - overthrow, divide the population, been seen as the soultion. The same reason for Al-Zarqawi's work in Iraq.

This smells of CIA and it's no suprise Murdoch's name is involved.
Most likely there will be some clashes and bombs in the next week while the Whitehouse will take the high road and claim it's 'wrong' but reminding us again how much of a 'tyrant' Saddam was, making sure they send mixed messages out to the public and to Iraqi's.

I'm sure we'll see more Saddam stunts pulled in the next 12 months until Civil war is ripe and they can start his trial to really fire it up so there's a nice cloud of smoke of confusion and fighting while he's assissinated (which the CIA have been givin the power to do in the World Wide Attack Matrix documents). There's no way they'll let him give evidence of corruption between Iraq, US, UK and others so his days are limited, thou the trial will begin, just not get far.

This is just some more wood for the fire, they may even put a solider in prison for it, we've learnt from Abu Gahrib that they are happy to let the runts take the fall.

It's funny how all the global press are proclaiming how wrong it is for these photos to be published, showing the very photos in their own articles or news briefs. Flag number one for a sign of propaganda (another increased CIA tatic as per the World Wide Attack Matrix documents signed by Bush).



[edit on 21-5-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 04:14 AM
link   
Thats nice, as if we dont have enough problems with american media running stories to make the US look bad, now the british press has upped the ante. Was it not enough that the newsweek article got people killed?
now the british media wants to get their hands dirty. the media are getting people killed to further their anti-bush agenda. I dont mind that they have their own political views but when you deliberatly run stories that you know will get innocent people killed you are just as responsible as the insurgents the media are aiding.
.

Definition of Treason: Providing aid and comfort to the enemy. I would say this certainly falls under that definition.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Thats nice, as if we dont have enough problems with american media running stories to make the US look bad, now the british press has upped the ante. Was it not enough that the newsweek article got people killed?
now the british media wants to get their hands dirty. the media are getting people killed to further their anti-bush agenda. I dont mind that they have their own political views but when you deliberatly run stories that you know will get innocent people killed you are just as responsible as the insurgents the media are aiding.
.

Definition of Treason: Providing aid and comfort to the enemy. I would say this certainly falls under that definition.


Oh? And where did the British Press get the photos from then, hmmm?



The Sun, owned by Rupert Murdoch, said the photos it published yesterday and today were provided by a US military official it did not identify who hoped their release would deal a ''body blow'' to the insurgency.


www.theage.com.au... obed/2005/05/21/1116533570746.html

Yeah, blame the media.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by cargo



The Sun, owned by Rupert Murdoch, said the photos it published yesterday and today were provided by a US military official it did not identify who hoped their release would deal a ''body blow'' to the insurgency.


www.theage.com.au... obed/2005/05/21/1116533570746.html

Yeah, blame the media.



I love this bit:


The US military in Baghdad said the publication of the photos violated US military guidelines ''and possibly Geneva Convention guidelines for the humane treatment of detained individuals''.


Abu Gahrib, Guantanmo Bay, CIA toture flights on the other hand...


This is such a show. Why would they mention that when it's blatently obvious they haven't been sticking to those guidlines anyway? It ONLY serves to get the Saddam Loyals in Iraq fired up and to please those that hate Saddam.
Which by no surprise is EXACTLY what the US is trying to do, getting the fractions of Iraq to turn on themselves and divide rather than concentrating and fighting the invading force. They also say this is Al-Zarqawi's plan for Iraq!

It's all scripted. This is the US government at work, acknowledging it any other way is only adding fuel to the fire and when 'news' is counter-productive, it's most likely propaganda.




posted on May, 21 2005 @ 08:09 AM
link   
OK, so we get to see Saddam in his undies. Whoopee doooo.

What is all the fuss about? We have the do gooders saying we have breached his rights, and publicly humiliated him. So what.
Where were these people when we saw the thousands of Kurds gassed?

Some people have short memories.
Remember how he he publicly humiliated others?
Remember how he killed thousands of innocent people?
Remember how he lived a life of luxury while thousands starved and lived a life of poverty?

Maybe the do gooders have forgot all this. These kind of people infuriate me.


OK, i suppose he has certain rights, but come on, what is the problem about a photo of him in his underwear? Are people offended because of the wrinkly state of his body? Or because it put them off their breakfast?
Who really gives a damn? I don't.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 08:26 AM
link   
I guess you guys have seen the mastercard advert? lol


was thinking maybe calvin klien would be his new sponsers


anyway, breaching his rights? surley the papers have done that by publishing them and should not effect his trial in anyway...?



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Im with Bikereddie on this one, what is the big fuss all about? Its not as if the pictures show him being tortured or having body parts cut off now is it?
Of course all the do-gooders are going to shout out abuse and unfair treatment but at the end of the day you cant please all of the people all of the time.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by cargo

Yeah, blame the media.


The media are not blameless and they hide too often behind "freedom of press". Whatever genius in the military leaked them will probably get dealt with.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   
XphilesPhan

Yes some 1 will take the blame for this

But i love to read minds..what what it say or try to hide



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan

Originally posted by cargo

Yeah, blame the media.


The media are not blameless and they hide too often behind "freedom of press". Whatever genius in the military leaked them will probably get dealt with.


Interesting wording. In your previous post, you scald the British Press regarding the publishing of these photos. After I pointed out a US Military source leaked the photos, you post "Whatever genius in the military leaked them will probably get dealt with". Probably? You don't really seem to care, but would rather shoot the messenger. If the source hadn't provided these photos in the first place, there would be no messenger to shoot.

It would seem that you are not interested in attacking the "genius who will probably get dealt with" in the US military who provided these photos. For a myriad of reasons perhaps. Most likely because he is one of your own. Are you American?

By your standards, that would make this US military source a traitor for aiding the enemy etc. etc. Right?

[edit on 21-5-2005 by cargo]



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 10:21 PM
link   


More brief shots of Saddam published
11:49 AEST Sun May 22 2005

AP - A British tabloid published more surreptitiously taken prison pictures of Saddam Hussein on Saturday, and Iraq's Sunni Muslim minority has sought to break out of its deepening isolation by forming an alliance of tribal, political and religious groups.

....

Sectarian tension has been high throughout the country and Sunni extremists are believed to be driving Iraq's relentless insurgency, with more than 530 people killed since Iraq's Shi'ite-led government was announced April 28.

....

There were fears that the publication Friday and Saturday of pictures showing the imprisoned Saddam, including one where he is naked except for his underwear, could further fuel anti-American sentiment.


news.ninemsn.com.au...


Like i said earlier, these photos are nothing more than fuel for a civil war, a deliberate ploy by CIA propaganda department via Murdoch press. The release this information through a sympathetic organisation (Murdoch) and then watch as it's picked up globally by other press trying to hint at it being wrong these photos exsist but also being quiet happy to show them themselves. Of course no punishment or harsh words will be given to the Murdoch press that launched these shots. They'll either be washed out of the media in a couple days, weeks or they'll hang it on the 'stupid kid' that sold the photos to the press.

What's interesting about this article is that it shows Saddam in his underwear, mentions it in the title of the story and the first paragraph but then goes on for quiet a length about the differences between the Sunni's and Shi'ite.

These photos aren't about Saddam, they are about causing unrest, sending out mixed signals, launching debate, arguements, differences between fractions of thought.

It's obvious that there will be parts of Iraq that don't care about these photos and think it's deserving and there will be other parts that are highly offended and will make that known.

With Iraqi elections coming up in December, we'll see more tatics used to cause unrest in Iraq leading up to what will be a VERY intense time as Sunni's are determined to not let this next election go by them uninvolved.

Questions that need to be answered to determine if this is just merly propaganda are:

1. Who approached who in regards to selling these photos?
2. How was anonanimity secured between the militery person and the press when it's obvious you'd get in a lot of trouble doing this, yet the media have admitted to paying for the photos?
3. Who has access to Saddam in this way? How many soldiers are around him in such a relaxed manner? Surely it's not hard to do a count and narrow the field pretty quickly?
4. What kind of lower level military would be this close to Saddam in a way that they could take photos undetected as surely a commanding officer wouldn't allow someone to take 'happy snaps'? Assuming it's by 'lower level' because there was money involved and higher level would know the risks involved. If a patsy (someone that got offered money for photos of Saddam, not realising they were going to take the fall all along) gets punished for this, will it just be the greedy young soldier or a high level officer? Remember who was punished in Abu Gahrib, not the higher levels, just the runt following orders.
4. Were other press originally approached or was it purely done via Murdoch tabloid? If it was only Murdoch press approached, why? We know the photos came out in the UK and US via Murdoch owned press first. Murdoch press is connected directly to the PNAC members.

Will any of these be answered or will the attention these photos create, simply shift focus onto Iraq and it's pending Civil war?




[edit on 21-5-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join