http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3857165.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3855359.stm

[SIZE=5]Defiant Saddam appears in court[/SIZE]


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40335000/jpg/_40335355_saddam203afp.jpg



[SIZE=4]Saddam: Both defiant and downcast
Iraq's ex-leader Saddam Hussein has made a defiant first appearance before an Iraqi judge, branding President George W Bush as the "real criminal". [/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]"Since the days of the previous regime until now," the judge replied, explaining that the former US-led occupation administration had asked him to hold the trial.

Saddam then laughed: [COLOR=Blue]"You are trying me by order of the invasion forces. By what law are you trying me?"

"I am trying you in accordance with the Iraqi law," the judge said.

"Then you are trying my by the law that I enacted," Saddam Hussein replied. "You are trying me by a law that I approved and ratified." [/COLOR] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]He was rebuked for using insulting language by the judge, who told him this was not permitted in a court of law.

At another point, the former president looked around smilingly at the court and remarked: [COLOR=Red]"This is all a theatre. The real villain is Bush." [/COLOR] [/SIZE]




...

[QUOTE=Keystone]Go Saddam!..... Go Saddam!

Yep. He served 'em. I read the transcript. Hussein is an enemy of Jews and will be treated accordingly.

He's completely correct when he says he's still the President of Iraq.


Keystone[/QUOTE]

The irony of course, being Iraq was probably the most "modern" arab state. Largely secular, Islamic fundamentalism was kept in check, and women weren't subjugated like they were in neighboring countries. Iraq was 97% muslim, but largely broke the traditional shackles of Islam.

I really do think the the Jews and radical Islam need each other...which is why Saddam had to go.







...

Good

Looks like Saddam is going to put up a defense like the Serb Milosevic is doing at his ‘war crimes’ prosecution in the Hague, which by the way isn’t going too well for ZOG. The only difference is that Saddam will be tried by ZOG Iraqi sockpuppets in Iraq and not at a zionist staffed “War Crimes Tribunal” in Europe, which by the way refused to indict the jew animal Ariel Sharon for his depredations on the Palestinian people. One standard for jews, another for the rest of us.

One has to wonder at what Saddam is likely to say in court about his business and personal relationships in the past with prominent Americans, some of whom are in positions of great power heer today. I hope that he is able to describe all his dirty dealings with the zionist scum heer in the US in lurid detail, I’m sure he knows quite a lot and it makes ya wonder what ZOG has figured letting him be tried like this.

This should be interesting, and it might even include a resistance sponsored jailbreak at some time in the future for Saddam and his crew, he in reality is far more beloved in Iraq than the lying jewish media alludes to in it’s stories about him. Damn, wouldn’t it be fucken cool to see him on the loose again, striking terror in the hearts of jewry everywhere like some crazy fucken Arab Jesse James and his gang? Saddam and his folk have every right to defend their way of life by any means necessary from the encroachment of the judaised West same as James and Co. defended their prarie lifestyle in the late 19th century.
I wish Saddam success against ZOG!

TG

You can bet your azz Saddam wishes those fingers were a pair of his beloved Tokarev automatic pistols in his hands to deal pain on the traitorous Iraqi scum in that kangaroo kourt who seek to take him down in a show trial for the glory of ZOG! :cool:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40336000/jpg/_40336733_picgalldoublepointap.jpg

All hail Saddam!

Yeah, I had to admit it...but Iraq is nothing more than a puppet state now.


It would be great if Saddam broke out and retook over the country, and suppressed the Islamic and Zionist thugs overrunning the country now.


.

"How can you, as an Iraqi, say the 'invasion of Kuwait' when Kuwait is part of Iraq?" he asked the judge, whose face was not shown on the film and whose identity is being kept secret for security reasons.

He said he invaded Kuwait "for the Iraqi people" and referred to Kuwaitis as "dogs", for which he was rebuked by the judge.

Saddam Hussein refused at the end to sign legal papers confirming that he had been read his rights and understood the case against him, saying he wanted his lawyer in court.

How could you defend those dogs [the Kuwaitis]? They were trying to turn Iraqi women into 10-dinar prostitutes
Saddam Hussein


Nice "Liberation" ZOG™®!

[QUOTE=Anima Eternae]Yeah, I had to admit it...but Iraq is nothing more than a puppet state now.


It would be great if Saddam broke out and retook over the country, and suppressed the Islamic and Zionist thugs overrunning the country now.


.[/QUOTE]
The show trial court is performing blunder after blunder. If this circus were to take place in an independant country, the plaintiff would be freed through legal technicalities. As a graduate of law school, he may be freed peacefully

I am very surprised. I was deadbolt certain that the boys would off Saddam in jail -- suicide or heart attack. If they had been smart, they would have.

I know there is no chance in hell, but I hope they vote to acquit and then re-elect him President. Yea, I really do know that there is no chance the puppets would do any thing cool like that, but it would be sweet.

Enkidu

http://www.dixienet.org/jeffdavis/images/jeffdavi.jpg

It is ALMOST impossible that the "judges" will show any real justice, but not 100% impossible as Jefferson Davis showed.

It is absolutely preposterous that the Yankees who invaded about a hundred countries and Iraq are now blaming Saddam Hussein for invading Kuwait. Damn, corrupt, kike ZOG cocksucking Yankees.

http://www.orient.art.pl/Rumsfeld-'offered-help-to-S.jpg

The kikenvermin didn't allow independent journalists to the "trial" and the video of the "trial" was heavily censored. So what we now hear and see is not even the best part.

http://www.maryland-us.com/military/Chirac_Hitler_Saddam_Paris.jpg

I hope he will make a big comeback. If history teaches us anything, it is that nothing is impossible.

[quote=Anima Eternae]The irony of course, being Iraq was probably the most "modern" arab state. Largely secular, Islamic fundamentalism was kept in check, and women weren't subjugated like they were in neighboring countries. Iraq was 97% muslim, but largely broke the traditional shackles of Islam.[/quote]


Exactly. Saddam preserved the ruins of Babylon while the US forces label him a 'barbarian' and bomb the shit out of Iraq's archeological treasures. The remnants of three ancient civilizations are on Iraqi soil. He is a man who proclaims himself a dictator and does not apologise for being so. America decrys tyranny - and yet it is tyrannical beyond belief.

[QUOTE=Anima Eternae]The irony of course, being Iraq was probably the most "modern" arab state. Largely secular, Islamic fundamentalism was kept in check, and women weren't subjugated like they were in neighboring countries. Iraq was 97% muslim, but largely broke the traditional shackles of Islam.

I really do think the the Jews and radical Islam need each other...which is why Saddam had to go.[/QUOTE]
True and I think it was Herr Linder who pointed out that since Iraq was a secular state the common bond among the people was race and nation which makes the Jews shit their pants.

[QUOTE=Der Henker]True and I think it was Herr Linder who pointed out that since Iraq was a secular state the common bond among the people was race and nation which makes the Jews shit their pants.[/QUOTE]

Excellent point. Israel stands to gain by having Iraq turn into another hellhole of Islamic radicalism and chaos.


Of course, what baffles me is Turkey. They're fairly secular too (Thanks to ataturk)...but maybe it's because they're SO westernized (unlike Iraq) they are too afraid to stand up to the Zionists.


..

That's not a real court

This whole spectacle is just a cleverly devised (or should i say semi-clever?) propaganda stunt to exploit saddam hussein and his collaborators. What kind of courtroom was that? They just put a handful of people in a tiny yellow room with a fake gate seperating the suspect from the judge by a mere few feet? And then they dont even show what tariq aziz and the other guy had to say. Did you catch the expression on tariq aziz's face when he entered the so-called "courtroom", he was like "what the hell is this?"

Not only do I question the validity of the arraignment, but I also question the validity of the charges. I mean, charging them as "war criminals"? What the hell did they do to become war criminals? Wasn't it the united states who invaded iraq for security reasons and they discovered that iraq had no weapons of mass-destruction and was actually not a threat after all? Doesn't that make their invasion illegal? Doesn't that actually make them war criminals instead? Wasn't the term "war criminal" invented by zog after World War II? I also boff at their plan of prosecuting saddam hussein for invading kuwait a decade ago. They had justifiable reasons for invading kuwait, unlike the ones that bush had for invading iraq! I guess zoggy is still pissed off about losing all that precious oil/money from kuwait. I find it strange that the "new sovereign (year right) iraq" would actually charge saddam hussein with invading kuwait. Isn't that a western grievance? I find it unlikely that any free-minded iraqi gives a damn about his invasion of kuwait. Only ZOG would have the audacity to charge saddam with that crime, which makes you wonder about the actual "Freedom" of the new iraq! Hmmmm..........

The greatest injustice, which I am not surprised all of you have missed entirely, is that we funded Saddam in his war against Iran in their "Gulf War" from '80-'88, with over 600,000 dead Iranians, that is to say WHITES, the result. We *gave* him the means to develop and implement the chemical weapons he used against the Iranians (that picture of Rumsfeld and Saddam is from the meeting where this was agreed) -- which is actually what set the precedent for the fear of Iraqi chemical weaponry, not the Kurdish tragedy. Another case of setting up a lesser man to contend with a great white institution, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and that lesser man being taken down later for not playing ball.

Yes, I just called the IRI a great white institution. If you deny it, you're thereby in league with the Zionists and their Christian puppets, for the IRI has been the grand thorn in their side since it was founded, and that is where the geopolitical beast is headed: the Aryan Plateau. What could be more threatening to a Jew than an Islamic Republic founded by ARYANS? With so much oil, even...

Of course, all of you will deny that Iran is a white nation, because you are obscenely stubborn. But if one of you realizes the injustice of this, and the injustice of it being ignored, my words will not be in vain. I suggest looking up info on the Iran-Iraq war, which the Iranians call "the Iraq-imposed war". I'm all for this "go Saddam!" joke, but think of how many Aryans he put to death, just to pacify the West and Israel, before you say it. Every time you slander Iran and Iranians, you're working for ZOG. Remember: they count on ignorance.

[QUOTE=MrOutis]The greatest injustice, which I am not surprised all of you have missed entirely...
I'm somewhat surprised at your arrogant assumption.
It is fortunate that we have your vigilance and superior intellect to help keep us aware.

Of course, all of you will deny that Iran is a white nation, because you are obscenely stubborn. But if one of you realizes the injustice of this, and the injustice of it being ignored, my words will not be in vain. Every time you slander Iran and Iranians, you're working for ZOG. Remember: they count on ignorance.[/QUOTE]
Thanks so much for your noble efforts to educate the "obscenely" stubborn and ignorant readers at this forum. We need more arrogant jackasses like you to bray the truth to us.

[QUOTE=MOMUS]Thanks so much for your noble efforts to educate the "obscenely" stubborn and ignorant readers at this forum. We need more arrogant jackasses like you to bray the truth to us.[/QUOTE]

If you'll review this thread, you'll see no mention of the I/I war until my post.

But hey. I won't go back on what I said: most of you *are* obscenely stubborn and ignorant. That's the fault of a public forum, after all.

[QUOTE=MOMUS]Thanks so much for your noble efforts to educate the "obscenely" stubborn and ignorant readers at this forum. We need more arrogant jackasses like you to bray the truth to us.[/QUOTE]

Actually, this retort is itself a symptom of the stubbornness -- so I'll bail out of this thread right here, as I have no interest in bickering.

See you around , thanks again for the brain droppings.
We here shall continue to wallow in our obscene stubbornness til your return, Messiah.

[QUOTE=MrOutis]Actually, this retort is itself a symptom of the stubbornness -- so I'll bail out of this thread right here, as I have no interest in bickering.[/QUOTE]

MOMUS

He’s just trying to inject his ‘Pan Aryan’ beliefs into this somehow, like our friend Diablo does in his posts when he is able to on subjects such as these. Trying to portray Saddam as a ‘killer of whites” by inferring the battle deaths of Iranians in the Iran-Iraq War were some kind of genocide against Whites is really stretching it a bit, isn’t it? I root for Saddam and his resistance countrymen because we have a common enemy, namely the zionist power structure, not because of any desire to marry one of my sisters off to one of them and call him brother. Same with the Iranians, I support totally their desire for national independence and opposition to “The Shitty Little Country tm”, but I don’t consider their folk my kin. My ‘obscene’ stubbornness is my conflict with anything that benefits jewry in any possible way …
Cheers

TG

great post for numero 1000 TG!

Saddam Hussein addresses an Iraqi judge Thursday in a courtroom at Camp Victory, a former Saddam palace on the outskirts of Baghdad. Below is a transcript of a rough translation:



Saddam: I am Saddam Hussein al-Majid, the president of the Republic of Iraq.

Judge: Profession? Former president of the Republic of Iraq?

Saddam: No, present. Current. It’s the will of the people.

Judge : The head of the Baath Party that is dissolved, defunct. Former commander and chief of the army. Residence is Iraq. Your mother’s name?

Saddam: Sobha. Therefore I’m talking to you as a judge, and an Iraqi one. You have raised accusations against me being the president of the republic regarding Hallabja that you could hear in the media, about attacking Hallabja during a regime that was headed by Saddam Hussein.

Judge: Well, you have said that you wanted to postpone talking about this during the presence of attorneys, but now you are answering questions.

Saddam: No, this was regarding previous accusations. If you want to repeat them in the presence of attorneys, yes, I want to postpone them. But if you want me to sign then the attorneys, no, please, I wouldn’t do it. So my occupation of Kuwait, the seventh charge, unfortunately it is coming from an Iraqi. Is this just?

Judge: But this is law.

Saddam: Law? What law? Law that puts Saddam to trial because the Kuwaitis said that we would make out of every Iraqi woman a prostitute for ten dinars in the street. And I have defended the honor of Iraq and revived the historical rights of Iraqis against these dogs.

Judge: Do not insult anybody, this is a legal session.

Saddam: Yes this is a legal session, and I am taking responsibility for what I say.

Judge: Any impolite statement is not acceptable.

Saddam: So the seventh charge against Saddam Hussein is that of being the president of Iraq and commander in chief of the armed forces. The armed forces went to Kuwait, right? So in an official way, is it legitimate to raise accusations against an official, and the official being accused away from the assurances by the constitution and laws including the one that you are trying me according to. This is the core of the issue. To raise accusations because it was acted upon during a regime headed by Saddam Hussein, but without providing the assurances to the president. Is this legitimate?

Judge: We have postponed this. You are answering officially. Do you want to answer these accusations in the presence of an attorney? Because if you read the report, it says that it has been postponed.

Saddam: Please allow me not to sign, except in the presence of an attorney.

Judge: What assurances are you seeking?

Saddam: I am talking about myself.

Judge: What assurances are you seeking that you want to sign? These are the assurances.

Saddam: Well, I am talking about the whole process. And this is part of the process, the legal process. But in every case, I will sign in the presence of lawyers. And you being a judge why act incorrectly and act in an expedited way and then you will be held responsible or at fault? You are an Iraqi judge?

Judge: Well it is your right to sign

Saddam: I will not sign except in the presence of an attorney. May I have clarification?

Judge: Go ahead, please.

Saddam: You also have to introduce yourself to me.

Judge: Mr. Saddam, I am the investigative judge of the central court of Iraq.

Saddam: So that I have to know, you are an investigative judge of the central court of Iraq? What resolution, what law formed this court? Oh, the coalition forces? So you are an Iraqi that — you are representing the occupying forces?

Judge: No, I’m an Iraqi representing Iraq.

Saddam: But you are ...

Judge: I was appointed by a presidential decree under the former regime.

Saddam: So you are reiterating that every Iraqi should respect the Iraqi law. So the law that was instituted before represents the will of the people, right?

Judge: Yes, God willing.

Saddam: So you should not work under the jurisdiction of the coalition forces.

Judge: This is an important point. I am a judge. In the former regime, I respect the judges. And I am resuming and continuing my work. You, as any other citizen, you have to answer to any accusation or charge, that’s true. This is an arraignment, a charge. If it can be proven, then you will be convicted. If not, then everything is fine. The judicial due process is to bring back rights. If there’s evidence, you’ll be convicted. If there’s no evidence, you will not. Until now, you’re accused before the judicial system. So according to that ...

Saddam: So, please let me — I’m not complicating matters. Are you a judge? You are a judge? And judges, they value the law. And they rule by the law, right? Right? For us, right is our heritage in the Koran, sharia, right?

I am not talking about Saddam Hussein, whether he was a citizen or in other capacities. I’m not holding fast to my position, but to respect the will of the people that decided to choose Saddam Hussein as the leader of the revolution.

Therefore, when I say president of the Republic of Iraq, it’s not a formality or a holding fast to a position, but rather to reiterate to the Iraqi people that I respect its will. This is one.

Number two, you summoned me to levy charges — no, I — you call it crimes.

Judge: The investigative judge — if there is evidence, then I’ll defer it to a court of jurisdiction.

Saddam: Let me understand something. Who is the defendant? Any defendant when he comes to a court, before that there should be investigation. This is not a court, this is investigation. This is investigation now.

Let me clarify this point. Then I hope that you remember you are a judge empowered by the people. It doesn’t really matter whether you convict me or not; that’s not what’s important. But what is important is that you remember that you’re a judge. Then don’t mention anything [about] occupying forces. This is not good.

Then judge in the name of people. Then that’s good. Then judge in the name of the people. This is the Iraqi way.

Judge: Mr. Saddam, this is an investigative process before.

Saddam: From the legal standpoint, you were notified that I have lawyers, right? Am I not supposed to meet with the lawyers before I come before you?

Judge: If you give me just 10 minutes, let’s finish the formalities and I’ll come to that. Then if you wait, then you will see that you have rights that are guaranteed. OK. Go ahead.

According to the law, Mr. Saddam, the investigative judge has to give the defendant the charges that are levied against him. And then reading the rights of all the charges according to the law, Articles 123, 124 and 125.

The first step is, these articles, were they not signed by Saddam Hussein? Yes, this is the law that was in ‘73. So then Saddam Hussein was representing the leadership and signed that law. So now you are using the law that Saddam signed against Saddam.

Saddam: Please, the constitution mechanism — I’m not a lawyer but I understand — I am originally a man of law. Is it allowed to call a president elected by the people and charge him according to a law that was enacted under his will and the will of the people? There is some contradiction, no?

Judge: The judicial process — let me answer this clarification — first, I’m not deliberating a case against you, I’m investigating, interrogating you.

Second, the president is a profession, is a position, is a deputy of the society. That’s true. And originally, inherently, he’s a citizen. And every citizen, according to the law in the constitution, if this person violates a law has to come before the law. And that law you know more than I do.

Judge: So the crimes, the charges, intended killing by using chemical weapons in Halabjah.

Saddam: No.

Judge: Second, intended killing of a great number of Iraqis in 1983. Three, intended killing of a number of members of political parties without trials. Fourth, intended killing of many of the Iraqi religious people.Fifth, intended killing of many Iraqis in Anfal without any evidence against it. You have the right to defend and answer. These are the guarantees.

(AUDIO DROPS)

Now we come to an important matter. You will have heard the court read the crimes that you’re charged—or were attributed to the accused, Saddam Hussein. And you were told what the articles of the law that apply to those cases. And the court has read to you the rights and the guarantees that any accused is entitled to, which includes the rights of defense and representation and also the right not to answer any question asked, and that will never be used as an evidence against the accused.

And the court also presented to the accused the right to argue the evidence.

The accused requested to meet with defense lawyers that are his private defense lawyers to be present with him in the investigative sessions. And in light of that, the minutes were concluded and the investigation is postponed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5345118

I wonder what they left out. Also note that ZOG doesn't allow a laywer which is against what ZOG itself says is the law.

^Wow Saddam sounds like a smart guy.



..

If Saddam is to be prosecuted for his invasion of Kuwait for which he had good reasons that are still sound, then George Bush certainly has to be prosecuted for his invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Shitty kikenvermin.

Just now, driving home from work, I heard NPR News complaining bitterly that the microphone worked for Saddam against ZOG's wishes. They had six different experts check the reporters cameras to make sure that he wouldn't be heard by the Iraqi people. Apparently one of the cameras had an internal mic that they overlooked.
Har har. Zog blew it.

They must have had some affirmative action nigger checking the hardware. :)

Still it is sad that the media is actually complaining that there is not enough censorship.

From now on, we won't be as lucky as we were on the first day of the "trial". ZOG censorship will go full gear to prevent the truth in this "trial" from coming out ever again.

I will be shot for this, but I will say it: Saddam Hussein is definitely MORE WHITE than George W. Shrub.
Saddam acted like a WHITE MAN. Moron George acted like a kike sockpuppet. I suspect George W. Bush has jewish ashkenazi blood.

The very next day the ZOG media exploits two pictures showing saddam being shackled, as if that's supposed to humiliate him.

[QUOTE=Auschwitz_Part_II]All hail Saddam![/QUOTE]

I saw some coverage of the trial and was like yay Saddam, give 'em hell. I'm really surprised that the Coalition Forces or Interim Council or whatever actually gave Saddam to the Iraqis for a trial. There is no doubt a lot of sympathy for Saddam among the Iraqi people, even if only because he is an Iraqi and not a foreigner. But I imagine that in about six months or so, maybe by November, Saddam will get the death sentence from the kangaroo court and Bush will stand in front of another mission accomplished sign for campaign commercials or some charade. But it's going to be interesting watching him mock his accusers and argue with the prosecutors, if it isn't completely edited to nothing. Does the guy even have his own lawyer?

Here's a good flash video about Saddam: Thanks for the Memories.

http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html

You might have to go to Bushflash, then click Animation, then scroll down to the bottom left animation called Thanks for the Memories.

That's a photo of Saddam and he looks like young white male there.

Saddam is another victim who wanted sovereignty and protection for his country just like Milosevic did when he was leader of Serbia. Kuwaits were apparently causing trouble for his country and he wanted it stopped. Unfortunately he trampled upon oil grounds that serve the oil capitalists in the U.S. – very rich capitalists including the Bush family. And, so the saga continues with Bush Jr. who wanted revenge and the capture of Saddam for his ‘big daddy’ by making up stories of WMD that were never found. And to save his own ass, they had the media show empty shells or disengaged weapons that were buried. Rumors were swirling for a while over a year that Bush was going to be impeached for no justification of invasion while hundreds of American soldiers died in vain. The impeachment never happened and it won’t. The sorry ass excuses to justify the war is enough to keep him from being impeached will be something that anyone will not want to challenge. Yes, Bush Jr. does have his back up protection, and I’m sure his ‘big daddy’ had a lot to do with it.

One thing to greatly emphasize, Saddam has been a better president for his country than Bush Jr. in the four years of presidency. Bush Jr. continually ignored the illegal invasion of the U.S. or has done very little to fight vigorously against the illegal invasion crossing our borders. He is too busy policing any nation that may have any kind of sovereignty. It’s laughable to hear any of the so called leaders of our country talk about terrorism at the same time and still the true leader of terrorism hasn’t been brought to justice.

While our country is being over-populated by muds and criminals, jobs are being exported only to leave service related jobs the majority to choose from. And, when an idiot on TV talks about increase in jobs and how our economy is growing, the only types of jobs growing are low-level jobs with low pay and no benefits. Our social-economic system is deteriorating to that of the level of a common Chinese in China. Our peace of mind and safety are always being challenged and threatened by the one(s) who cry terrorism. Terrorism abroad has no immediate threat to the U.S., but the terrorism from those who dictate terrorism are.

[QUOTE=Bragi]But it's going to be interesting watching him mock his accusers and argue with the prosecutors? Does the guy even have his own lawyer?[/QUOTE]

Get ready to shit a brick. Muamar Khadafi's daughter is going to be one of his lawyers. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/02/jordan.saddam.slawyer.ap/index.html

I thought libya was supposed to be zog's new best friend? I guess zog is planning to fill saddam's defense team with zoglites, that saddam would never even choose, with one mission in mind--to botch the defense of saddam hussein.