The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Apparently so. Both Bush and Blair are comfirming it but I only just heard the news so I don't know any of the details. If you have any further news or any thoughts on the subject please post them here, thanks.
Page:
I haven't actually read down this thread yet, but if Bell is back, I'm guessing that somewhere on it there will be a post along the lines of "HA! All you anti-war people will be upset! And the BBC will be trying to backtrack!!". Anyway, to forestall that one (in so much as it's possible to forestall anything 24 hours after the event), I can't imagine there being ANYONE who isn't glad that Saddam has been captured. And having watched BBC News 24 for 7 hours straight yesterday, I can assure the naysayers that the Beeb (along with every other news channel) are pretty damned stoked too. So just in case it's already been said, or someone is thinking about saying it;
- Anti war and Pro war alike are delighted at his capture. Assuming Bell is reading this, I'll make it simple; Saddam captured = GOOD
- The BBC are extremely congratulatory to the US forces and intelligence who effected the capture.
Anyone saying otherwise either hasn't watched any coverage, or is deluding themselves for the sake of sticking with a familiar rant.
Now, it would be churlish for me to write anything along the "Ya Boo Sucks" lines today (tempting though it is, as this capture might get Dubya re-elected), so I won't. But there is one point; Saddam's trial. If it's international, we'll get to hear full details of which western countries and companies, be they UK, US, French, German, Russian....whatever, gave Saddam all the weapons and aid he needed to wage war and commit genocide. If, as is being mooted, the trial is held in Iraq under Iraqi law (which, as yet, doesn't seem to actually exist) and by Iraqi judges, will we hear anything of how Saddam was given billions by the west? I doubt it, but I still hope so; doubtless the Iraqi people will also want to know who gave Saddam the means to commit his atrocities. Don't hold your breath, but the plan to give Saddam an Iraqi trial could prove even more embarrassing to western interests than the left wing are currently saying.
- Anti war and Pro war alike are delighted at his capture. Assuming Bell is reading this, I'll make it simple; Saddam captured = GOOD
- The BBC are extremely congratulatory to the US forces and intelligence who effected the capture.
Anyone saying otherwise either hasn't watched any coverage, or is deluding themselves for the sake of sticking with a familiar rant.
Now, it would be churlish for me to write anything along the "Ya Boo Sucks" lines today (tempting though it is, as this capture might get Dubya re-elected), so I won't. But there is one point; Saddam's trial. If it's international, we'll get to hear full details of which western countries and companies, be they UK, US, French, German, Russian....whatever, gave Saddam all the weapons and aid he needed to wage war and commit genocide. If, as is being mooted, the trial is held in Iraq under Iraqi law (which, as yet, doesn't seem to actually exist) and by Iraqi judges, will we hear anything of how Saddam was given billions by the west? I doubt it, but I still hope so; doubtless the Iraqi people will also want to know who gave Saddam the means to commit his atrocities. Don't hold your breath, but the plan to give Saddam an Iraqi trial could prove even more embarrassing to western interests than the left wing are currently saying.
Goatboy wrote:
> lalakersrule wrote:
> 1) the BBC to come out and say how this is the worst possible thing
> to have happened and America are the true evil of this world for
> daring to capture such a sweet and innocent man
>
> Hmmmm...and on what basis do you say this?
Oh i don't know probably the time something bad ever happened to coalition troops we were suddenly 'losing the war, choas is ruling over all' Hardly ever did the BBC concentrate on any of the good things that happened, why do that when you can just concentrate on the bad things and get over the agenda of the war is bad and America and Britain are evil for going in? Forget fair and balanced reporting. It's why i switched their coverage off after a week or so.
> I mean, it's almost like you're mirroring the stupidity and blanket
> fundamentalist mindset of the *absent* Bellendy.
I hope with you highlighting absent that you aren't saying that i'm Belldandy. *Gasp* anyone that dares to have a different opinion than you about the war must surely be the evil Belldandy in one of his many disguises. This is why i left this forum in the first place, well apart from the little hissy fits you and the others got into with Belldandy that swallowed all the other actually interesting topics up, anyone that happens to have a different view and actually likes America (don't confuse America with Bush) seeing as i lived there for 2 years and actually got first hand experience of living there with the people, gets jumped all over and must obviously be a fundamentalist and war hungry git.
>
> 2) The do-gooders to come out their holes and start shouting how he
> better not have his 'human rights' violated.
>
> Surely *you* aren't going to stupid and confuse "anti-war"
> with "pro-Saddam"?
Ermmm did i mention anything about that in my point there. That's you jumping to your own conclusions. I know full well you don't have to be pro-saddam to be anti-war. I'm anti-war yet i hate Saddam with a passion.
> Show me one single shred of reporting where people have stuck
> up/excuses/supported the dictatorship regime of Saddam Hussein
> (installed, created, supported and funded by America and The United
> Kingdom by the way)
> Certainly not here.
Well as my point didn't include anything about being pro-saddam i don't really need to support a point i didn't make.
> Only an ass would be stupid enough to think that because somebody was
> opposed to the invasion of another country under lies, false pretence
> and shaky evidence, riiiiight?
Well that's a whole paragraph of unrelated nonsense and nothing to do with my point in the first place. My point was actually having a go at the do gooders and PC brigade in this country who's first response probably won't be *Oh Saddam's been caught that's great, a big dark cloud has been lifted off the Iraqi people* it's more likely to be *You better not do anything to harm his human rights*. Now you know that i'll be interested to read what you have to say on that and find out, if like me, you are tired of how many times we hear of how 'criminals can't have their human rights violated'. Someone who's nicked a bit of bread off a food stall should have his human rights respected, someone who's killed thousands of his own people deserves to rot in jail with the very basics to allow him to carry on living his pathetic evil life. The only thing he's entitled to is a fair trial and then when he's found guilty 3 basic meals a day.
> And nobody would be stupid enough to forget several discussions here
> (before Bellendy waded in with his groupthink yessir! posts and
> accused everybody that didn't wave a little flag for "our
> boys"), where myself, Light and several others said that the
> arrest and trial of Hussein would be preferable to simple death -
> because then no justice would be served.
And i totally agree with you on that point. If we had killed him he'd have been made a martyr and hardened the will of the terrorists and probably would ended up in more deluded people joining the terrorists cause. Prison will punish him far more then simple death would (well unless he gets sent to a prison over here)
>
> Because, y'know, only an ass would not post with their regular
> account because they were embarassed but couldn't resist crowing
Well seeing as this is my usual account and i've had it for a pretty long time that's another bit of conclusion jumping.
> It's good that Saddam has been captured alive.
I agree
> It's a shame it cost billions of pounds/dollars and has resulted in
> the death of thousands of Iraqi civilians and the soldiers that have
> died in an unjust invasion to remove a man solely there because we
> put him in power to further our own interests.
I agree
> And if anybody thinks this trial will not be at the behest of the
> CIA, then you're in la-la land.
We'll have to wait and see on that last point.
> lalakersrule wrote:
> 1) the BBC to come out and say how this is the worst possible thing
> to have happened and America are the true evil of this world for
> daring to capture such a sweet and innocent man
>
> Hmmmm...and on what basis do you say this?
Oh i don't know probably the time something bad ever happened to coalition troops we were suddenly 'losing the war, choas is ruling over all' Hardly ever did the BBC concentrate on any of the good things that happened, why do that when you can just concentrate on the bad things and get over the agenda of the war is bad and America and Britain are evil for going in? Forget fair and balanced reporting. It's why i switched their coverage off after a week or so.
> I mean, it's almost like you're mirroring the stupidity and blanket
> fundamentalist mindset of the *absent* Bellendy.
I hope with you highlighting absent that you aren't saying that i'm Belldandy. *Gasp* anyone that dares to have a different opinion than you about the war must surely be the evil Belldandy in one of his many disguises. This is why i left this forum in the first place, well apart from the little hissy fits you and the others got into with Belldandy that swallowed all the other actually interesting topics up, anyone that happens to have a different view and actually likes America (don't confuse America with Bush) seeing as i lived there for 2 years and actually got first hand experience of living there with the people, gets jumped all over and must obviously be a fundamentalist and war hungry git.
>
> 2) The do-gooders to come out their holes and start shouting how he
> better not have his 'human rights' violated.
>
> Surely *you* aren't going to stupid and confuse "anti-war"
> with "pro-Saddam"?
Ermmm did i mention anything about that in my point there. That's you jumping to your own conclusions. I know full well you don't have to be pro-saddam to be anti-war. I'm anti-war yet i hate Saddam with a passion.
> Show me one single shred of reporting where people have stuck
> up/excuses/supported the dictatorship regime of Saddam Hussein
> (installed, created, supported and funded by America and The United
> Kingdom by the way)
> Certainly not here.
Well as my point didn't include anything about being pro-saddam i don't really need to support a point i didn't make.
> Only an ass would be stupid enough to think that because somebody was
> opposed to the invasion of another country under lies, false pretence
> and shaky evidence, riiiiight?
Well that's a whole paragraph of unrelated nonsense and nothing to do with my point in the first place. My point was actually having a go at the do gooders and PC brigade in this country who's first response probably won't be *Oh Saddam's been caught that's great, a big dark cloud has been lifted off the Iraqi people* it's more likely to be *You better not do anything to harm his human rights*. Now you know that i'll be interested to read what you have to say on that and find out, if like me, you are tired of how many times we hear of how 'criminals can't have their human rights violated'. Someone who's nicked a bit of bread off a food stall should have his human rights respected, someone who's killed thousands of his own people deserves to rot in jail with the very basics to allow him to carry on living his pathetic evil life. The only thing he's entitled to is a fair trial and then when he's found guilty 3 basic meals a day.
> And nobody would be stupid enough to forget several discussions here
> (before Bellendy waded in with his groupthink yessir! posts and
> accused everybody that didn't wave a little flag for "our
> boys"), where myself, Light and several others said that the
> arrest and trial of Hussein would be preferable to simple death -
> because then no justice would be served.
And i totally agree with you on that point. If we had killed him he'd have been made a martyr and hardened the will of the terrorists and probably would ended up in more deluded people joining the terrorists cause. Prison will punish him far more then simple death would (well unless he gets sent to a prison over here)
>
> Because, y'know, only an ass would not post with their regular
> account because they were embarassed but couldn't resist crowing
Well seeing as this is my usual account and i've had it for a pretty long time that's another bit of conclusion jumping.
> It's good that Saddam has been captured alive.
I agree
> It's a shame it cost billions of pounds/dollars and has resulted in
> the death of thousands of Iraqi civilians and the soldiers that have
> died in an unjust invasion to remove a man solely there because we
> put him in power to further our own interests.
I agree
> And if anybody thinks this trial will not be at the behest of the
> CIA, then you're in la-la land.
We'll have to wait and see on that last point.
unknown kernel wrote:
> I don't see why you had to support the war to be glad that Saddam has
> now been captured.
---
Bingo. 100% correct.
That sums up the idiocy of the pro-war lobby.
The reasons offered were lies, as was stated at the commencement of the invasion (it wasn't a war).
Now it's a "Free the people!!" mantra, because it's better than facing up to the lies offered as reason.
And as has been seen here time and time again courtesy of our resident assclown Belldandy, people cannot differentiate between "anti-war" and "pro-Saddam".
It's just something that makes no sense to these black and white thinking loyalists.
Before Bell returns trying to preen and avoid the utter fiasco of "Dude, Where's my country?", I shall reiterate what I have been saying since February of this year:
I am, was, and continue to be 100% opposed to an invasion based on lies, deliberately false information and propaganda.
I am, was, and continue to be 100% opposed to the notion of Saddam Hussein being allowed to get away with it.
I am, was, and continue to be 100% opposed to the installing, funding, training, support and goodwill of my country towards friendly dictators when they serve a purpose in political goals, only to then call them evil when it no longer serves us:
Pinochet, Noriega, Hussein, Bin Laden, Mugabe etc etc etc.
Hussein has been captured, this is good.
However, Afghanistan still lies in ruins, the Taleban have returned, Bin Laden remains at large, Mugabe lays waste to Zimbabwe and coalition troops are still being killed, 7 months of the "ceasation of hostilities"
Things are far from joyous.
I repeat:
Anti-war does not mean pro-Saddam.
If you think it does, then you are beyond thick.
Nobody here, at any point, has ever supported Hussein.
Opposed to the invasion, yes.
You cannot stand there and realistically expect those with questions as to WMD, reasons offered for war etc to simply stop asking questions because a puppet dictator has been captured, shortly to be put on trial for crimes committed with our full consent and compliance.
> I don't see why you had to support the war to be glad that Saddam has
> now been captured.
---
Bingo. 100% correct.
That sums up the idiocy of the pro-war lobby.
The reasons offered were lies, as was stated at the commencement of the invasion (it wasn't a war).
Now it's a "Free the people!!" mantra, because it's better than facing up to the lies offered as reason.
And as has been seen here time and time again courtesy of our resident assclown Belldandy, people cannot differentiate between "anti-war" and "pro-Saddam".
It's just something that makes no sense to these black and white thinking loyalists.
Before Bell returns trying to preen and avoid the utter fiasco of "Dude, Where's my country?", I shall reiterate what I have been saying since February of this year:
I am, was, and continue to be 100% opposed to an invasion based on lies, deliberately false information and propaganda.
I am, was, and continue to be 100% opposed to the notion of Saddam Hussein being allowed to get away with it.
I am, was, and continue to be 100% opposed to the installing, funding, training, support and goodwill of my country towards friendly dictators when they serve a purpose in political goals, only to then call them evil when it no longer serves us:
Pinochet, Noriega, Hussein, Bin Laden, Mugabe etc etc etc.
Hussein has been captured, this is good.
However, Afghanistan still lies in ruins, the Taleban have returned, Bin Laden remains at large, Mugabe lays waste to Zimbabwe and coalition troops are still being killed, 7 months of the "ceasation of hostilities"
Things are far from joyous.
I repeat:
Anti-war does not mean pro-Saddam.
If you think it does, then you are beyond thick.
Nobody here, at any point, has ever supported Hussein.
Opposed to the invasion, yes.
You cannot stand there and realistically expect those with questions as to WMD, reasons offered for war etc to simply stop asking questions because a puppet dictator has been captured, shortly to be put on trial for crimes committed with our full consent and compliance.
lalakersrule wrote:
> 1) the BBC to come out and say how this is the worst possible thing
> to have happened and America are the true evil of this world for
> daring to capture such a sweet and innocent man
Hmmmm...and on what basis do you say this?
I mean, it's almost like you're mirroring the stupidity and blanket fundamentalist mindset of the *absent* Bellendy.
So c'mon, why would the BBC say that?
> 2) The do-gooders to come out their holes and start shouting how he
> better not have his 'human rights' violated.
Hmmmm...it's almost like you're mirroring the stupidity and nlanket fundamentalist mindset of the *absent* Belldandy.
Surely *you* aren't going to stupid and confuse "anti-war" with "pro-Saddam"?
Show me one single shred of reporting where people have stuck up/excuses/supported the dictatorship regime of Saddam Hussein (installed, created, supported and funded by America and The United Kingdom by the way)
Certainly not here.
Only an ass would be stupid enough to think that because somebody was opposed to the invasion of another country under lies, false pretence and shaky evidence, riiiiight?
And nobody would be stupid enough to forget several discussions here (before Bellendy waded in with his groupthink yessir! posts and accused everybody that didn't wave a little flag for "our boys"), where myself, Light and several others said that the arrest and trial of Hussein would be preferable to simple death - because then no justice would be served.
Because, y'know, only an ass would not post with their regular account because they were embarassed but couldn't resist crowing - despite the fact that not one single person here has supported, condoned or legitimised the murderous rule of a man that we put there and gave full consent to the "evil" gassing of the Kurds, increasing their credit limit with the IMF (links can be provided)
It's good that Saddam has been captured alive.
It's a shame it cost billions of pounds/dollars and has resulted in the death of thousands of Iraqi civilians and the soldiers that have died in an unjust invasion to remove a man solely there because we put him in power to further our own interests.
And if anybody thinks this trial will not be at the behest of the CIA, then you're in la-la land.
> 1) the BBC to come out and say how this is the worst possible thing
> to have happened and America are the true evil of this world for
> daring to capture such a sweet and innocent man
Hmmmm...and on what basis do you say this?
I mean, it's almost like you're mirroring the stupidity and blanket fundamentalist mindset of the *absent* Bellendy.
So c'mon, why would the BBC say that?
> 2) The do-gooders to come out their holes and start shouting how he
> better not have his 'human rights' violated.
Hmmmm...it's almost like you're mirroring the stupidity and nlanket fundamentalist mindset of the *absent* Belldandy.
Surely *you* aren't going to stupid and confuse "anti-war" with "pro-Saddam"?
Show me one single shred of reporting where people have stuck up/excuses/supported the dictatorship regime of Saddam Hussein (installed, created, supported and funded by America and The United Kingdom by the way)
Certainly not here.
Only an ass would be stupid enough to think that because somebody was opposed to the invasion of another country under lies, false pretence and shaky evidence, riiiiight?
And nobody would be stupid enough to forget several discussions here (before Bellendy waded in with his groupthink yessir! posts and accused everybody that didn't wave a little flag for "our boys"), where myself, Light and several others said that the arrest and trial of Hussein would be preferable to simple death - because then no justice would be served.
Because, y'know, only an ass would not post with their regular account because they were embarassed but couldn't resist crowing - despite the fact that not one single person here has supported, condoned or legitimised the murderous rule of a man that we put there and gave full consent to the "evil" gassing of the Kurds, increasing their credit limit with the IMF (links can be provided)
It's good that Saddam has been captured alive.
It's a shame it cost billions of pounds/dollars and has resulted in the death of thousands of Iraqi civilians and the soldiers that have died in an unjust invasion to remove a man solely there because we put him in power to further our own interests.
And if anybody thinks this trial will not be at the behest of the CIA, then you're in la-la land.
lalakersrule wrote:
> 1) the BBC to come out and say how this is the worst possible thing
> to have happened and America are the true evil of this world for
> daring to capture such a sweet and innocent man
Have ever actually watched the BBC, or are you just parotting what you read in The Sun? It's coverage of the war itself was possibly even more partisan and patriotic than any other network: lots of embedded reporters and footage of explosions on the horizon, but very little of the blood and guts that were spilt in the war. There was certainly never any kind of 'Saddam is great' propaganda.
> 2) The do-gooders to come out their holes and start shouting how he
> better not have his 'human rights' violated.
This I just don't understand. Now that the lies about WMDs have been exposed, the retroactive justification for the war is 'human rights, freedom, democracy' etc. Why not show our commitment to these values by applying them equally to everyone, even our enemies. Give Saddam a lawyer and a fair trial: he should be punished for what he did, but he should be punished through the process of law rather than subjected to lynch mob justice. I want to hear the details of what he did, the evidence of his brutality that will stop him becoming a martyr; I want to hear how western governments colluded with him when it was convenient, so that the foreign policy 'mistakes' of the past might not be repeated. Don't give people an excuse to hate America by torturing or mistreating him.
> One thing that did make me laugh is France and Germany sending their
> congratulations to Bush. You still aren't getting them contracts boys
> so go back and carry on working on that little constitution of yours.
I don't see why you had to support the war to be glad that Saddam has now been captured.
> 1) the BBC to come out and say how this is the worst possible thing
> to have happened and America are the true evil of this world for
> daring to capture such a sweet and innocent man
Have ever actually watched the BBC, or are you just parotting what you read in The Sun? It's coverage of the war itself was possibly even more partisan and patriotic than any other network: lots of embedded reporters and footage of explosions on the horizon, but very little of the blood and guts that were spilt in the war. There was certainly never any kind of 'Saddam is great' propaganda.
> 2) The do-gooders to come out their holes and start shouting how he
> better not have his 'human rights' violated.
This I just don't understand. Now that the lies about WMDs have been exposed, the retroactive justification for the war is 'human rights, freedom, democracy' etc. Why not show our commitment to these values by applying them equally to everyone, even our enemies. Give Saddam a lawyer and a fair trial: he should be punished for what he did, but he should be punished through the process of law rather than subjected to lynch mob justice. I want to hear the details of what he did, the evidence of his brutality that will stop him becoming a martyr; I want to hear how western governments colluded with him when it was convenient, so that the foreign policy 'mistakes' of the past might not be repeated. Don't give people an excuse to hate America by torturing or mistreating him.
> One thing that did make me laugh is France and Germany sending their
> congratulations to Bush. You still aren't getting them contracts boys
> so go back and carry on working on that little constitution of yours.
I don't see why you had to support the war to be glad that Saddam has now been captured.
Good riddance. Now Zoidbergs the popular one!
Terrible man, that Saddam. He kept his whole nation under oppression so they were afraid to go outside, he single handedly forced a war with America which caused his country to be bombed and organised all the attacks all over the world from his high tech secret headquarters, while at the same time massing more and more weapons of mass destruction that were so carefully and deviously hidden that not even his own men could find them. He should be killed viciously because killing is a good way to teach him a lesson so he won't do it again and it will show people that he was a nasty man for killing people himself.
i think that they should kill him, take him to the usa and give him either lethal injection or just put him in some cell in america that is rat infested.
Well i'm waiting for 2 things to happen
1) the BBC to come out and say how this is the worst possible thing to have happened and America are the true evil of this world for daring to capture such a sweet and innocent man
2) The do-gooders to come out their holes and start shouting how he better not have his 'human rights' violated.
I give it a day or so. Anyway big congratulations to the troops for capturing this evil man and hopefully now this is the first major step to rebuilding Iraq for it's people.
One thing that did make me laugh is France and Germany sending their congratulations to Bush. You still aren't getting them contracts boys so go back and carry on working on that little constitution of yours.
1) the BBC to come out and say how this is the worst possible thing to have happened and America are the true evil of this world for daring to capture such a sweet and innocent man
2) The do-gooders to come out their holes and start shouting how he better not have his 'human rights' violated.
I give it a day or so. Anyway big congratulations to the troops for capturing this evil man and hopefully now this is the first major step to rebuilding Iraq for it's people.
One thing that did make me laugh is France and Germany sending their congratulations to Bush. You still aren't getting them contracts boys so go back and carry on working on that little constitution of yours.
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> I'm glad to see that such an evil man has finally been caught alive.
Here Here.
Word is, he will be in front of an Iraqi court, charged with crimes against Humanity.
It's a great day.
> I'm glad to see that such an evil man has finally been caught alive.
Here Here.
Word is, he will be in front of an Iraqi court, charged with crimes against Humanity.
It's a great day.
Page: