Pentagon: Saddam's sons are dead

Post by **Sloth** » Tue Jul 22, 2003 8:59 pm

Rumsfield put a 15 million dollar bounty on each of them. An anonymous tip came in and they sent a squad out to murder them.

If you upset the Republicans by not giving them all your oil... they will send out the opinionless army of goons to get you.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/07/22/sprj.irq.sons/index.html

How does this make you feel?

Myke115 · Post by **Myke115** » Tue Jul 22, 2003 11:02 pm

Hip hip hooray. Sadaam's sons were more brutal than he was. Doesn't make me a damn bit bad. Uday persecuted Iraqi Olympic athletes via torture if he didn't like their scores enough and was widely known to rape young women at will. I find it hard to believe anyone would have a problem with putting a bounty on that bastard's head. And don't go stretching the truth to equate that with Repubs sending out goon squats to put hits on anyone they disagree with. Would you feel better, Sloth, had we found them and sent them to live in exile in a third country in the lap of luxory? Your disdain for Rumsfeld renders nearly any argument you have against him moot as no matter what he does, you'll find a way to turn it into an act of evil. He could die and will his wealth to orphans and you'd claim the orphans were paid to be future republicans. If you can't set aside your emotional hatred of one man, you end up stretching the truth into what you want it to mean and it all ends up seeming silly.

myke

PS - I, for one, won't shed a damned tear for either Sadaam or his two demonic sons.

Post by **mccutcheon** » Tue Jul 22, 2003 11:04 pm

I'm glad they are dead. They were evil, or so I'm told. Of course, they never did anything to me. I wonder if the guy who gave the tip really gets the money. I'd like to see a reciet for that. US money for a bounty.

Myke115 · Post by **Myke115** » Tue Jul 22, 2003 11:09 pm

I will give you that. If someone actually gave a tip, I wonder if they'll really get that money.

<Dr Baltazar> · Post by **<Dr Baltazar>** » Wed Jul 23, 2003 12:58 am

It might be a good thing that they are dead.

What concerns me though is that the act seems to be one of execution, and yet there has been no trial, so there could have been no death penalty.

An issue like this one raises questions of moral. Can men be so obviously rotten there is no need for a trial? Who is to decide when a man is so obviously rotten there is no need for a trial? Are any acts allowed in a war (or, rather, in “the battle against terrorism&#8221

?

Regardless of the possible benefit of S Hussein’s sons being dead, the act of killing them was murder.

So will the perpetrators of this crime stand for trial? Or will somebody else deem them so obviously rotten there is no need for a trial, and go ahead and commit yet another murder?

Post by **Sloth** » Wed Jul 23, 2003 5:47 am

Good point, Dr Baltazar... whoever you are.

Mike is it also good that they killed Saddam's 14 year old grandson because he would have grown up to be bad and rape women too? Should we kill Kobe Bryant without a trial?

I think it's devilish to throw around insults at Saddam's sons for raping women. I have never seen any proof of this and after all there were no WMD unless Bush is saving them for the election

Wouldn't Rumsfield kill his own mother to be President? Or is he already in charge?

In short... I think Bush and his cronies are 50% full of shit. The first casualty of War is always the truth.

Post by **Sloth** » Wed Jul 23, 2003 6:00 am

"I am evil incarnate."

Post by **Sloth** » Wed Jul 23, 2003 6:02 am

Meanwhile Liberia, a country with ex-americans in danger, is being totally ignored! look at their flag!

If only they had oil!

rabbit · Post by **rabbit** » Wed Jul 23, 2003 7:15 am

clicky!

Post by **mccutcheon** » Wed Jul 23, 2003 7:32 am

Tommy Martyn · Post by **Tommy Martyn** » Wed Jul 23, 2003 4:36 pm

Dear Dr,

I'm a busy man these days so itwould save me a lot of time and energy if you could briefly outline exactly how much of a fucking idiot you are. that way we will all know at what level to post our replies.

thanks

Maverick · Post by **Maverick** » Wed Jul 23, 2003 5:29 pm

Dr. Balthazar, watch out for tommy. He'll tear you a new one.

Myke, I agreed with your sentiments exactly, and perhaps it's cold of me, but I don't care that Saddaam's sons didn't get a trial. Of course, as McCutcheon and the Sloth said, they didn't do anything to me, but I thought here on this website people were supposed to show concern for their fellow humans. Just because Uday and Qusay never beat me or raped anyone I know doesn't mean they are innocent. As for the 14 year old being killed, that strikes me as wrong, but as usual, we don't know all of the true details.

The world will be a better place when people who routinely practice brutality are punished, and no, even though I don't like Bush +Rummy, they are not included in that. Although trying to take overtime away from workers does seem brutal, but that's a different topic.

Post by **mccutcheon** » Wed Jul 23, 2003 5:35 pm

In theory, pursuing with intent to kill violates a long-standing policy banning political assassination. It was the misfortune of Saddam Hussein's sons, Odai (who never raped Mav) and Qusai, that the Bush administration has not bothered to enforce the prohibition. The brothers were killed during a six-hour raid Tuesday at a palatial villa in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul by U.S. forces acting on a tip from an informant. They ranked just below their father in the deposed regime. Odai, in particular, had a reputation for brutality and would have raped Mav given the chance.

Tommy Martyn · Post by **Tommy Martyn** » Wed Jul 23, 2003 5:54 pm

1) "It might be a good thing they are dead." Well yes, it might. Certainly if you are of the opinion that we already have enough sadistic, psychopathic, mass murdering tyrants.

2) "The act seems to be one of execution." I don't have a dictionary at hand but my general assumption about execution is that those who die are not armed at the time. The reason the brothers died without trial is that they were shooting at the people who would have done the organising of the trial. (Injuring at least four I believe.) Perhaps if you had knocked on their door and asked them to pop down to the station while you all ironed out this misunderstanding, then bloodshed could have been avoided. Perhaps monkeys will also fly out of my butt.

3) Nice to see you wrestling with the big issues like good and evil. I can answer some of your questions about war and ethics by pointing you in the direction of the Geneva Convention. It outlines conduct for war. It is actually quite famous.

4) "The act of killing them was murder." Er, no it wasn't. Indeed I would go as far to suggest that the authorities are disappointed they could not get them alive.

5) "Can men be so obviously rotten there is no need for a trial?" Although awfully phrased - you stand trial for actions not demeanour - the question I think you are asking has a simple answer. No. There is always a need for evidence, burden of proof etc. Do circumstances always permit? Again a simple answer. No.

6) "Regardless of the possible benefit".....of the brothers grim being dead. Why use a phrase like possible. Have you no idea about how evil these people were? It is hard to describe them without resorting to cliche. Are you of the opinion that they were innocent creatures, victims of a Rumsfeld smear campaign and deserving of rehabilitation and perhaps a fresh start? I tire of reading posts where people let their loathing of the Bush administration (All well and good and healthy) seep into opinions about the outgoing Baathist regime. Something in this makes my blood boil. I can't let it go. I think of the mass graves, the decimation of the marsh arabs, the chemical attacks and the relentless tyranny of this bloated family. Any shading of opinion that veers away from absolute hatred of these characters is a moral failing as far as I am concerned. It is up there with
bad poets (You know who you are) and wearing T-shirts with band names on them when you are over 40.

Post by **Sloth** » Wed Jul 23, 2003 8:54 pm

Tommy no one is arguing that the Husseins are not real stinkers.

As if we needed proof... Liberia proves AGAIN that foreign cruelty has never been a real factor when deciding when the US gets involved in wars recently.

If an alien race decided that you were unfit to run your household because you exterminated your termites and stroked your dog... that doesn't make it right for them to blow up your house. It's part of your culture to do these things.

Kings have always had their way with their subjects. I would do the same if I were the king and so might you. We both might attack a rebellion with chemical weapons if they tried to assassinate us. We might open fire on civilians when they protested our policies. The USA has done this and so why does it shock us when Iraq does? Is it motivation for this bloodlust I see on CNN?

The more and more you dive into this the more it seems like this war was started as a Bush ego massage. It is not even a Republicrat thing... it is an empire thing.

And... Bush can't figure out how all his oil got trapped in the Middle East.