Slashdot Mirror
South Park Creators Given Signed Photo of Saddam Hussein
Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the creators of South Park, were given a very special gift by US marines: a signed photo of Saddam Hussein. During his captivity, the marines forced Saddam to repeatedly watch the movie South Park: Bigger, Longer And Uncut, which shows him as the boyfriend of Satan. Stone said, "We're very proud of our signed Saddam picture and what it means. It's one of our biggest highlights."
physics
Holy fuck. You Americans are admitting that you have tortured a leader of a country that you illegally invaded by saying over and over... "You are a fag" Geeze, I think the 9/11 Bombers should be let go and declared heroes for pointing out what a shit hole of a country you really are.
This is hilarious that they made Saddam watch South Park over and over again. As long as Saddam was a tyrant responsible for many deaths in his own country, he completely deserved this to say the least.
Your tax dollars at work
Really? how many tax dollars do you think were spent? Some guy probably had the movie on his computer and they just put it on repeat. Don't be a drama queen. Like you've never goofed off for 10 minutes on your employer's time, which is all the time it would take. These are people too.
well done america, another reason to gain respect from the world
Yup, how dare us make fun of a former dictator while he's imprisoned. How horrible of us for us to make him watch a tv show that depicted him, an oppressive dictator, in a bad light.
If you had Saddam in your prison, you know you'd do the same thing.
I mean, big deal, it's a frickin' MOVIE.
We're talking about a guy who _shredded_ dissenters in a giant machine here.
and this demonstrates what's wrong with American society.
The event itself was bad enough, but responses like this cement it.
If you don't see what's wrong, then you're part of the problem.
What a bunch of pussies on this thread.
To sum it up : sure, it's very slightly unprofessional of the US Army. This being said, who cares, plus the movie's actually funny, it might even have alleviated some of the guy's boredom. If I've watched that movie half a dozen times, surely a most infamous and ruthless dictator can watch it more than that.
You just got troll'd!
Nevermind my forgiveness - I'm not up to the challenge of replacing the missing screw in your head.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
By applying anything short of our own standards of justice, we betrayed both these purported goals and showed our true colors.
But but but but, no one culture is any better than any other culture. Who are we to say that the Iraqis shouldn't execute Saddam? Shame on you for being Euro-centric.
Moral relativism is despicable on any day
Where, then, do moral absolutes derive? (Be careful what you say, because "Following one's conscience" is Moral Relativism.)
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
In my book the reason we invaded is that Saddam wouldn't let us "have" the oil. He wanted to keep the oil as a "nationalized" export. Seeing as we installed him to "give" us the oil, he had effectively quit being useful to us and as such had become "dispensable". After the Iran/Iraq gig, and later Kuwait (who was allowing us to angle-drill beneath the Iraqi border...hence why Saddam blew up the oil wells) and our attempt at a Kurdish revolt (which we dropped the ball on and allowed 40,000 kurds to be gassed with weapons we previously sold Saddam) we couldn't keep face and deal openly with him for Iraq's oil. We needed the oil, so he had to go...End of story....for now.
-Oz
Yeah, like you had any lingering respect for anything not socialistic in nature. The comments in this thread are so typical of the leftists on Slashdot. They have the Global Warming bit, then the anti-religion bit, but "Oh, it's in the interest of science" and has no political agenda.
Ha! The man was evil to his core, killed more people than I have met in my lifetime, and was forced to watch a very bad movie (not just crude for the sake of being crude, but also not even humorously crude). I seem to remember a popular TV series where people would enjoy watching bad movies along with 3 fictional characters.
Was it stupid? Yeah. Was it anything to get upset over. Umm. No. In fact, it probably bothered Sadaam not at all, because despite his evil, he probably possessed a pair, which you sadly lack.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yeah, I sure wouldn't want to be accused of showing a criminal a movie he wouldn't want to see. That sure is the basest thing imaginable.
Even being sarcastic about it is hard because it's so ludicrous that people can be upset about this. Not only would I do it myself in a heartbeat, if the roles were reversed I'd have bigger things on my mind (like imminent execution) than what some bored non-coms think is a funny movie.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
Why you invaded Iraq you murderous baby killers? Peace bro/./.
What I thought was weird was how they consistently released photos and stories just to make him look bad - Saddam getting his teeth inspected, Saddam wearing whitey-tighties, Saddam likes Cheetos and Doritos - every release of information about him was carefully controlled to discredit him as a strongman.
Did Democrats (at both top and street level) do anything less about Sarah Palin?
From my observation, in 95% of cases when people say "Method X is evil", they really only mean "Method X is okay, the target of it just wasn't someone I want it to be".
e.g.
- banning political parties is an evil method - Unless the party is one we hate.
- infiltration of political parties is an evil method - Unless the party is one we hate.
- surveillance and wiretapping is an evil method - unless it's of someone we dislike.
If he was that easily humiliated, maybe he deserved to be hanged. I am joking but please there is no correlation between being offended and torture which all this amounts to, not humiliation. You know sometimes I wonder if people even think through the consequences of what they are suggesting. When this is held up as an example of humiliation it cheapens the concept of humiliation by surplanting it with the offensive. Soon nobody will be able to say anything offensive because it amounts to humiliation and we'll have lost our right to free speech. Nice job.
Ah, yes, it's the Jews again.
I didn't realize that there was enough neo-Nazis on here for such a comment to get modded +5.
What culture you ask? Why, the culture that said it was ok for him and his sons to set up building containing rooms for the express purpose of raping, torturing, and killing people for fun.
That is the culture to which Saddam Hussein belonged.
Now, please shut the fuck up.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
In what countries does the state not kill people?
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
Because South Park kicks ass, and since back in the 90s when the first video circulated the internet before they ever hit the TV SP has been a part of geek culture.
You don't understand because you take it up the ass, just like FOX News does you fucking CBG.
By not taking action such that a murderer is not capable of murdering again you are culpable for any further murders they commit.
I believe that is what s/he was getting at. I don't personally agree with that 100% but I'm all for executions, hell they don't even need to be humane. I would however prefer that it be as inexpensive to the public as possible. Cruel punishment to me means that the punishment far out weighs the crime. But the punishment always needs to out weigh the crime by some measure so that it's a deterrant and not merely a cost of doing business.
Oh well sorry Mr. Rambo there of course you have tons of experience at being held prisoner and being humiliated and sleep depriven for weeks on end.
Thanks for your input cowboy. Now go bak to crawling in the mud please.
---
"The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
How utterly and completely stupid do you have to be to put a cup of hot coffee between your thighs? Worst of all, due to it, now all you get at McD as "coffee" is lukewarm, blackish water that's been kept at a little above room temperature for hours.
I want my coffee strong, black and most of all, hot. Maybe that's why I don't put it between my thighs. It's like suing a nail pistol maker for not telling you it's not a good idea to check its function by looking into the unhealthy and and pulling the trigger. Doing stupid things leads to getting hurt. Dunno about you, but here kids learn that. So they stop doing stupid things.
Of course, if being stupid means you get rewarded instead of the insult you deserver, more people will be stupid. Why should I watch out? If I fuck up, someone else will be to blame anyway.
What kind of culture is that?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
US: A lot
Those who support said whackjob with ever more ridiculous excuses are worse.
Unlike the whackjobs who support Obama and the ever more ridiculous excuses for his bow to the King of Saudi Arabia?
The Couric interview was obviously hostile and Palin was trying to avoid getting caught in a trap. What's Obama's excuse?
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money
The US/UK did not "slide on ice" into the war in Iraq by accident; they attacked Iraq when Iraq was no threat to them. It was aggressive war, pure and simple. They said it had something to do with WMD. That, too, was bullshit.
Incorrect. It wasn't 'bullshit' as you so eloquently put it. The information stated that there were WMDs and it was believed to be more reliable than unreliable.
Saddam had a history of using WMDs, I'm sure that you'll agree with me on that one.
Not finding them doesn't suggest that 1) they never existed 2) Saddam didn't have the intent to obtain more and 3) he wasn't told by his scientists that they would have WMDs for him again soon.
Yes. It's much better to live under a dictator in fear for X number of years than to face bloodshed to attain a democracy. That explains why there are no examples of democracy being worth bloodshed and being worth a shift from dictatorship. (PS: If you argue that Iraqis should have done it themselves on their own time, please see 'Kurd uprisings')
But who killed more people?
The real question is 'who would have killed more people,' but obviously we can't know that now as Saddam is dead. We probably should have left him alone to kill X number of people before taking him out, because obviously there is a certain number of acceptable innocent deaths (regardless of intention) that will solve this debate.
I apologize to /. for you if you really don't see a difference in intentions, credible beliefs, and dictatorship v democracy.
Why you invaded Iraq you murderous baby killers?
To murder your babies!