Saddams Sons

Tha Gopher

Did anybody else notice the hypocracy of the US plans to release the photos of the dead sons of Saddam Hussein in order to prove they are dead? Its just that a few months ago when the Iraqi media decided to film the dead and captured American and British soldiers it was apparently a disgrace to do it for such blantantly evil propoganda purposes. It could be said that the showing of dead and captured POWs was in order to prove to the world that they had really been captured.
Apart from showing the world that the USA supposedly has the upper hand what will showing the bodies prove? Seeing as one son was so badly wounded in the face that the dental records results couldnt be 100% certain what do they aim to prove?

Gordon

If they do I'm sure that they will claim that it is all fine and well because they aren't technically at war right now. Or something.

Sparks

If they do I'm sure that they will claim that it is all fine and well because they aren't technically at war right now. Or something.

More like they'll say that they're doing it for the good of the Iraqi people - they're hardly likely to declare war over anytime soon...

mike65

I think the rational is that the Iraqi and indeed Isalamic
public is so sceptical that nothing less than pixs of the dead will do to prove they are dead except that ppl will now post about how useful photoshop is in situations like this....:rolleyes:

Mike.

Paddy20

Sparks,

Just a small point, but as far as I can recall the war was declared officially over some time back by both the Americans and the British. I stand open to correction if I am wrong?..

See Ya Hombre!.

seamus

I find it quite sickening that a few people seem to think it's ok too celebrate the death of these guys.

As bad and all as they were, it's murder. There's never justification for killing someone. What was wrong with making every attempt to capture them? But no, the American establishment decided that the deaths of Saddams sons would be critical.

If such a shootout had happened in America, and a 14-year-old boy, another man just doing his job, and the two main suspects were killed, it'd be declared a huge failure at attempts to reason with the suspects. But no, the US go overkill, send 200 troops in to just shoot the **** out of the house, and call it a victory.

And the Sun's headline today? "GOT 'EM". Ffs. What' s the world coming to? And yet, if some Islamic militant assassinated GWB, he'd be labelled scum and a murder, and any Islamic papers which celebrated this would be singled out as sickening and promoting of <insert cause here>.

I mean, HELLO? Hypocrites? Are you in there?

Gob****es........

:rolleyes:

Sorry for the rant

Sparks

Just a small point, but as far as I can recall the war was declared officially over some time back by both the Americans and the British. I stand open to correction if I am wrong?..

You are incorrect, but that's okay, because that was what Bush's photo op on the carrier was supposed to make you think. In fact, the war is still ongoing, despite the serious downplaying that that fact is getting.
But then, the Korean war is still ongoing as well, technically.
(Though the way things are going, that may cease to be a technicality soon enough )

Paddy20

seamus,

You are dead right, if you will exscuse he pun. The American military are notorious for making collosal mistakes, this murder being just another example of a nation run by halfwits, for and on behalf of the misguided dimwitted American electorate.

The US is imho the most dangerous Country on the face of the Earth!, and the reason some British Prime Ministers appear too be on their side is primarily economic as well as trying too keep the madhatters under some semblance of reasonably sane control.

Gloating over the vicious murder of another human being is disgusting and unforgiveable, but I am not surprised at the reaction of the ignorant and the ill informed. The poor sods.

Maybe some day they might reconsider and then become humanatarians. I live in hope, being the eternal optimist in the battle between good and evil in this world.

Be lucky.

Paddy20.;)

Tha Gopher

Yes Seamus I remember thinking last night after seeing the sky newspaper review the Got Em headline on the Sun is extremely familiar to their much criticised Gotcha headline re the sinking of the Belgrano warship in the Falklands War.
And you just know that if an Iraqi managed to kill members of the Bush family it would be a different story. Sure,they may not be involved directly in anything, but neither most probably was Saddams grandson who died in the raid. But if an Iraqi managed to kill an innocent Bush relative during an assasination attempt on the president(which of course would be unjustified even though he invaded a country which posed little or no threat to the USA and hunted down and killed its leadership)you just know there would be more media attention.
The guys did deserve death but what was done is still legally unsound.

Meh

Originally posted by seamus
What was wrong with making every attempt to capture them?

Uh, Saddam's sons shot first, the gunfight lasted six hours and there were four US wounded. Doesn't look like Uday and Qusay were in any mood to surrender.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3091621.stm
They died barricaded in a fortified second-floor section of a three-storey villa in northern Mosul after two attempts by coalition forces to arrest them had been resisted, according to General Sanchez.

Heavy gunfire injured four US troops and forced a withdrawal by the American forces, who were tipped off about the brothers' presence by an Iraqi informant.

Helicopter gunships, armoured vehicles and ground troops then opened fire on the building.

Missile strike

General Sanchez said Qusay, Uday and "another adult" - reportedly a bodyguard - were probably killed by a hand-held missile fired by ground troops.

As US troops entered the building for the final assault, General Sanchez said, they came under fire from a "remaining individual" - who was shot dead.

Sparks

Actually gopher, they deserved a life sentence making small rocks somewhere cold.

Gordon

Bloody hell - helicopter gunships, armoured vehicles and ground troops to kill 3 men and a boy and it took 6 hours and 4 US soldiers were wounded. Are the soldiers the type of people that are normally playing banjo with their sisters in the middle of America somewhere by any chance? The type of soldiers that would throw grenades into their own barracks?

seamus

Originally posted by Meh
according to General Sanchez.

Yeah.....I see.

They wanted to arrest them, so they sent in 200 armed troops, including troops armed with missle launchers.

Doesn't sound like the Americans were in any mood to discuss surrender.

Meh

Originally posted by seamus
They wanted to arrest them, so they sent in 200 armed troops, including troops armed with missle launchers.

Doesn't sound like the Americans were in any mood to discuss surrender.

It sounds to me like they weren't taking any chances with them escaping.

If it was an assassination, why did it take six hours and four wounded Americans? Why didn't they just surround the building then airstrike it off the map? It doesn't take six hours to call in an airstrike. It could have been over in 30 minutes.

Not to mention the valuable intelligence an interrogation of those two could have given.

Moriarty

I suspect the sons really didnt want to get captured by the US. They knew better than most about 'interegation techniques' and im sure they wouldnt want to be on the other end of any of them. I reckon they were more than happy to pick the best of a bad bunch of options and get killed on the spot rather than being whisked away for 6 months to some pacific island with full US hospitality. Once people in that sort of situation make the choice to die rather than be captured, theres not a lot you can do to prevent them. There were apaches and c-130s on standby for use that werent called in, which demonstrates the thinking of the US assault. Overwhelming force at the ready for use if necessary with a heavy troop presence to effectivley cordon off the area. The very last thing the army needed was to corner these two in a building only for them to sneak away under their noses.

On the issue of the pictures, theyre in a rather tight spot. Show the pictures and theyre called hipocrites. Dont show the pictures and theyre accused of faking their deaths with the aim of regaining some popular support. Im thinking theres a third option of showing select people in arab governments the proof of it being them - leaving those governments confirm it to the general populace - but its an academic argument now since rummie has confirmed theyll be distributing the pictures.

Wook

don't you worry , if the US doesnt want to show the pictures because of the possible afteraffect.. i can assume it will mysteriously 'leak' out somewhere. And after the Jessica Lynch 'rescue', do you still believe American News reports ?

furthermore... pay the so called 30Mil to get a few corpses ? expensive it seems. If they had them alive they could be paraded around which is more worth then a newsflash.
To me it doesn't make sense, talking about the elite forces of the states that are trained to do CQB all the time and then need 200plus to raid a house?! Bull.
So what happend then ?

-the brothers were found before, executed and left there in a time that american soldiers are being sniped out of Iraq? Political motivation ?

-The dead are not the sons of Sadam (which i doubt because then Sadam himself could easily send out a tape with the two characters).

-a Stunt to have all Iraq see that the millions on Sadam's head will be paid out.

any other ?

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Wook
don't you worry , if the US doesnt want to show the pictures because of the possible afteraffect.. i can assume it will mysteriously 'leak' out somewhere. And after the Jessica Lynch 'rescue', do you still believe American News reports ?

They have said that they are going to show the pictures.

furthermore... pay the so called 30Mil to get a few corpses ? expensive it seems. If they had them alive they could be paraded around which is more worth then a newsflash.

So do you reckon they tried to surrender?

Wook

does NOT surrendering mean, you going to get killed ?
Sure you improve the chances to get blown away.

I thought American forces had loads of experience in house to house combat and are in fact trained for these situations.
They could have captured them alive, what good are all these special forces guy's if you don't use them ?

Headcase

i find it hard to believe that the dental records were so readily available. surely seeing that Saddam has so many look alikes as do his sons i'm sure. that information like dental records would be hide away somewhere or not exist. correct me if i'm wrong.

i'm of the belief that 2 wrongs don't make a right. yes there were bad, but as said before, they would of been a lot more valuable alive.

i also find it ironic that a us soldier, Jessica Lynch, is capture and rescued and is made out be a f**kin hero.
are they handing out medals for being captured these days?

i remember, when those us soldiers were killed and paraded on tv, and i thought it was unesscary, but obvious the americans see that anything you can do, we can do better.

PH01

... that when these pictures are released that the bodies will be 'dressed' in scruffy old clothes, that will make them look as scumbaggy as possible even to Arab audiences?

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Headcase
i'm of the belief that 2 wrongs don't make a right. yes there were bad, but as said before, they would of been a lot more valuable alive.

I agree they would have been more valuable alive. However, how long do you think the US forces are supposed to lay siege to the house, all the while making themselves targets for other elements.

Admittedly, I'm going on news reports which could be unreliable.

I'm not saying the US occupation is right, I'm just trying to be realistic. It would certainly be wrong for them to leave while these two are at large. The only option, if the reports are true, would have been to give Saddam's sons one chance to surrender then go in after them.

BKtje

If I supposedly did all the things that people say thet did (i dont know if they actually did all those horrible things...) then i'd be fairly slow in surrendering as well...

To be fair to the US military its better safe than sorry. As people have said there would have been more effecient ways to kill these guys (and safer) but it seems (if the papers can be believed/accurate) that they tried to get them to give up.

Bloody hell - helicopter gunships, armoured vehicles and ground troops to kill 3 men and a boy and it took 6 hours and 4 US soldiers were wounded? -snip-

I imagine they got wounded before the helo's etc were called in after they wouldnt surrender. (debris from blowing up a building can hurt as well ya know if your too arrogant to not get under cover )


I have a question tho, its not totally the same i do realise but its still something to ponder...

If you had had the chance to kill Hitler and 'all' it would have cost was the life of his grandson (ie before/during the war) would you have the same qualms(sp?) about it as you do about this?
(remember that without Hitler there *may* not have been a 2nd world war, nothing is guaranteed of course)

gandalf

Personally I think they've made a major mistake in killing these two.

You have to consider the Arab mentality where people who are killed fighting overwhelming odds are considered martyrs. 200 Heavily armed troops with Air support against 4 men (1 a teenage boy) definitely falls into that category.

Gandalf.

(of course the real conspiracy theorist in me says that the yanks are waiting for the bodies to thaw out properly before allow them to be photographed IT does deflect the pressure Bush & Blair thou )

Sarky

What got me most about that news was they way Bush and Blair both effectively started singing "Ding dong, the with is dead". One report on telly said Bush actually praised the killing of two men.

They kinda shot themselves in the foot though with the amount of forces they used. Overwhelming odds and they fought to the death, taking out some of their opponents and holding out for SIX HOURS. That's famous last stand stuff there, and the whole martyrdom concept will add to that and make them total heroes in the eyes of their followers.

If it's true they're dead, resistance to the US may just get nastier soon...

dahamsta

Originally posted by Sarky
What got me most about that news was they way Bush and Blair both effectively started singing "Ding dong, the with is dead". One report on telly said Bush actually praised the killing of two men.

Blair said it was "great news". Saw it meself.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1097785,00.html

He wasn't saying it about the "struggle" or "progress", he was specifically talking about their deaths. I find that unacceptable from the leader of a supposed democracy. Yes, they were probably horrendous men who did horrendous things; yes, it's probably a good thing that they're out of action; but to say, beaming, on live television that the death of two men - ANY two men - is "great news" is just shameful. It's shameful for anyone to say, never mind someone of Blair's stature.

adam

ReefBreak

Originally posted by seamus
I find it quite sickening that a few people seem to think it's ok too celebrate the death of these guys.

As bad and all as they were, it's murder. There's never justification for killing someone. What was wrong with making every attempt to capture them? But no, the American establishment decided that the deaths of Saddams sons would be critical.

Gob****es........

:rolleyes:

Sorry for the rant

What utter naivety. The sons of Saddam got what they deserved. They were responsible for the murder and torture of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Yes, it would have been better if they were captured, but as yet we don't know yet the full story behind the 6 hour gun battle. Did the sons shoot first? Did they surrender?

It's easy from your very comfortable seat in Ireland to talk about due judicial process - but say that to the family and friends of those that were butchered by these thugs. In fact, say that to the Iraqi football team that had their feet burned after arriving home from the world cup, or the man immersed in a bath of acid, or men who were forced to watch their whole families being murdered before being shot themselves, or the families of the 14 year-old girls that were raped in public.

So yes, I celebrate their deaths. I hope it was slow and painful.

Cork

These 2 had a record of showing much brutality to others. Iraq is a far better place without these 2. Were these 2 going going to surrender?

They had plenty of opportunity to do so.

These were thugs of the highest order. These 2 showed no justice to many. It would be great to see them on trial. But the world is a better place without them.

Sparks

Cork and Reefbreak, you've missed the point completely.
They got a relatively quick and painless death. After thirty-odd years of killing and causing misery (between the pair of them).
It would have been far better to condemn them to breaking rocks somewhere in Siberia for the rest of their lives.
Unless of course you believe in divine justice. Which I don't. But then, if divine justice exists, there are religions that say that they're in some form of paradise now.
So I'll stick to the lifetime-of-rock-breaking, thanks...

ReefBreak

Originally posted by Sparks
Cork and Reefbreak, you've missed the point completely.
They got a relatively quick and painless death. After thirty-odd years of killing and causing misery (between the pair of them).
It would have been far better to condemn them to breaking rocks somewhere in Siberia for the rest of their lives.

Actually I agree, but unfortunately this will not happen. But I'm still glad they're dead.

Ronan|Raven

The death of the two Sons will change nothing imho. The attacks are still going to continue against the americans and british will continue. I wonder how many troops lives it will take for B&B to figure out that maybe they arent wanted in Iraq by the people. Yes they may have "liberated" the population but from reports it seems clear that that population no longer wants them in their country.

As people have already stated a lot of people will now view the two sons as Martyrs due to the whole scenario of the final scene.
No doubht they got what was coming to them, they sure as hell werent nice people but alas this whole scenario will have the opposite effect than what the U.S wanted.

Sparks

But I'm still glad they're dead.

I'm not. Like I said, people got cheated.
Frankly, it'd be like if the Squire were to drop dead today. I wouldn't celebrate, because it would mean he cheated justice and never had to endure any sanction for his actions.

Cork

But a population that had to endure torture under Saddam & his family will not have mixed feelings about living in fear for years.

But I would like to see Saddam brought to justice. Even though some politicians/leaders in some states would give him refudge.

gandalf

Its like this. The US had the opportunity to capture these two (and please don't try and argue that 4 people could have held out against 200 men). They could have humiliated them, tried them in the full public gaze, televised it to the Iraqi people so they could get a sense of justice and when convicted executed them if the wanted and they would have achieved alot more and given a certain legitimacy to the whole process.

By killing the in this way they have given them a sick hero status that may act as a catalyst to intensify the resistance to the Axis of Diesel, I mean today 3 more US troops have been killed.

As for Cork & Reefbreak going on that they had what was coming to them, maybe so but isn't the US supposed to be showing the people of Iraq a better way to build and run their country and surely one the tests of this is how you administer justice. They took Saddams sons out exactly like the old regime would have taken their enemies out, they killed them.

Gandalf.

ReefBreak

Originally posted by Ronan|Raven
The death of the two Sons will change nothing imho. The attacks are still going to continue against the americans and british will continue. I wonder how many troops lives it will take for B&B to figure out that maybe they arent wanted in Iraq by the people. Yes they may have "liberated" the population but from reports it seems clear that that population no longer wants them in their country.

Off-topic but anyway... Wrong. Most reports state that most people in Iraq want the US in their country (to get it up and running after 30 years of Saddam). The people that want them out are a small minority of Saddam-loyalists (but enough to cause a couple of US deaths each day).

Watching RTE might make you think differently however - take a closer look at reports from Baghdad that include stories of "Anti-US" protests. On a number of occasions, a distant wide-angle shot has shown that the numbers in each protest were very small (sometimes less than 50 people). Propaganda, RTE style.

Of course, the European "Left" would love the US to leave Iraq. That way, they could accuse the former "occupiers" of abondoning their responsibilities over the rebuilding of the country.

Wook

Originally posted by ReefBreak


Of course, the European "Left" would love for the US to leave Iraq. That way, they could accuse the former "occupiers" of having abondoned their responsibilities regarding the rebuilding of the country.

oooh like what they left in Afghanistan ?

Sparks

Wrong. Most reports state that most people in Iraq want the US in their country

Fox news can report it 25 hours a day, reef, it won't make it true.

BKtje

4 men could (altho not easily) hold out if they didn't care about their own safety (and they had enough ammo). The americans obviously didnt want to take extra casualties so they had to be cautious.
I'm sure if they wanted to badly enough they could have but might have taken a lot longer with a lot more casualties. All depends on on how much ammo food etc these guys had.

ReefBreak

Originally posted by Wook
oooh like what they left in Afghanistan ?

What they left in Afghanistan? They're still in Afghanistan.

ReefBreak

Originally posted by Sparks
Fox news can report it 25 hours a day, reef, it won't make it true.

I'm referring to statement made on BBC, C4, and RTE. Not to mention the fact that Robert Fisk has stated the same thing on Today FM. I've never even seen Fox News.

Wook

Originally posted by ReefBreak
What they left in Afghanistan? They're still in Afghanistan.

exactly
they're still rebuilding or did they stopped trying or pretending?
will this same fate fall on Iraq ?
Nothing to do with left or right but with the responsibility of taking care of your occupied land and doing what you said to justify the war.
But this is beside the topic of the original post.

Sparks

What they left in Afghanistan? They're still in Afghanistan.

Yes, and in talks with the Taliban "regarding the security situation"...

Lemming

Originally posted by B-K-DzR
4 men could (altho not easily) hold out if they didn't care about their own safety (and they had enough ammo). The americans obviously didnt want to take extra casualties so they had to be cautious.
I'm sure if they wanted to badly enough they could have but might have taken a lot longer with a lot more casualties. All depends on on how much ammo food etc these guys had.

Tear Gas boys and girls ... it works surprisingly well. Other words that spring to mind are "stun-grenades". I find it rather hard to believe that if the US were interested in capturing them that they wouldn't have had such equipment handy to use (if even in small amounts - which is all that'd be needed anyway)

Last time I checked, the US doesn't solely rely on soldiers lobbing grenades with their arms either ......

dathi1

So yes, I celebrate their deaths. I hope it was slow and painful.

This form the guy who castigates me for supporting the Palestine?? Just think of it...these guys were bank rolled by American and British Military contract companies since they were teenagers...and now according to Pentagon speak they are (were) the bad guys.

Anyway.. Victory to the fedayeen (whoever's behind them).

Meh

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=33&si=1016081&issue_id=9539
Ilham Ibrahim, a housewife who spent the next few hours cowering in a ground-floor room as her lime trees, windows and walls were shredded by US fire, said the first she heard was loudspeaker announcements in American-accented English directed at the "people inside the house" to come out.

Then came the first bullets, fired, by universal agreement, by a lone gunman on the roof.

"He missed and then all the Americans opened fire at once," Raed Sheet, who runs a grocer's across the street, said.

The battle ended at about 2pm when troops ran up up the stairs to the second floor and shot the remaining suspect, believed to be Mustafa Hussein, when he opened fire on them, General Sanchez said.

That should put an end to the idea that Uday and Qusay were murdered without being given a chance to surrender.

Originally posted by Lemming:
Tear Gas boys and girls ... it works surprisingly well.

Then we'd have the same people complaining about the US using chemical weapons.

Lemming

Originally posted by Meh
Then we'd have the same people complaining about the US using chemical weapons.

Oh yes. I forgot about that. Tear gas is banned for front-line/combat use under the Hague convention iirc *

Stun-grenades aren't however ......



* Then again, the US has a fondness these days for 'forgetting' about silly little annoying international treaties that get in its way, yet serve it's interests when they want.

Sparks

The Hague Convention, Lemming.
And I remember posting a complaint about that when it was authorised for front-line use during the invasion, in direct violation of that convention.

Headcase

how much ammo, could 4 people possibily have. after 6hours, you'd imagine it was running low.

did the yanks just get impatient?

ReefBreak

Originally posted by dathi1
This form the guy who castigates me for supporting the Palestine?? Just think of it...these guys were bank rolled by American and British Military contract companies since they were teenagers...and now according to Pentagon speak they are (were) the bad guys.

There's a world of a difference between killing Saddam's sons and deliberately murdering innocent children on a bus.

Originally posted by dathi1
Anyway.. Victory to the fedayeen (whoever's behind them).

The fedayeen? Try standing in a market square in Baghdad and saying that. Like most naive lefty's in Europe, you're displaying the "I'll support whatever bloodthirsty group of torturers/murderers/butchers fights the US." It doesn't seem to matter what they're like as long as they're anti-American. Next you'll be supporting Bin Laden's crowd.

But I guess I wouldn't expect anything less from someone that supports the intentional murder of innocent civilians by terrorists.

ReefBreak

Originally posted by dathi1
Just think of it...these guys were bank rolled by American and British Military contract companies since they were teenagers...and now according to Pentagon speak they are (were) the bad guys.

Anyway.. Victory to the fedayeen (whoever's behind them).

This is yet another chestnut that the Left come up with to support their blind anti-americanism (pro-communism?). Yes, the Yanks supported the Iraqi regime to try and halt the spread of Islamic Fundamentalism. A real fun-loving religion if there ever was one.

Then, Saddam becomes as bad as the tyranny they're trying to halt, which means they have two options:
1. Leave him alone. Result: The European Left become hysterical about the West not doing anything about a dictator that's murdering millions of his own people.
2. Remove him from power. Result: The European Left become hysterical about the West invading a country that's run by a dictator murdering millions of his own people.

In other words, whatever the US do, they'll be hated by the vocal European socialists.

Stark

I hope there's a hell so they can burn in it.

dahamsta

Way to oversimplify the situation ReefBreak. I wouldn't expect any less though.

Option 3: Don't act like a bully and decide on spec that you're going to do what you bloody want whether or which.

adam