Saddams Sons

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

SkepticOne

Originally posted by k.oriordan
I hope there's a hell so they can burn in it.

Pictures (graphic) here of them:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3093637.stm

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1098025,00.html

Some background on Uday here.

dathi1

The fedayeen? Try standing in a market square in Baghdad and saying that. Like most naive lefty's in Europe,

In the Sunni district..yes they'd be into it...The shia...yes yer right.
As for being a lefty..I'm not. Your perception of Left wing / right wing is sort of off the mark.

They didn't bank on guerrilla warfare..matter of fact they didn't bank on anything like whats happened since "the end to hostilities"
The high school politics of Congolezza and the stupidity of Rumsfeild will make sure this "war" will go the way of a shia state rendering what we knew of the state of Iraq or what was intended to follow to the dustbin. If you think the bathists guerrilla tactics are a minority on the defensive attack wait till you get a load of the shias when they call their Jihad in 3 months. (I think that's what the mullahs said on CNN) lets face it...when it comes to international affairs Wolfowitz and Co lack the sophistication to deal with an Arab nation and are way out of their depth.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by dathi1
In the Sunni district..yes they'd be into it...The shia...yes yer right.

You would want to check very carefully first.

BKtje

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

Stun grenades arent always effective...depends if the men were all in one room/together etc. Even when using stun grenades it isnt too hard for someone to aim in the direction they thought it came from and jut press the trigger. Their aim would be well dodgy but still possible to to do a fair bit of damage.

Course they might always have seen the americans coming , depends a bit how easy the terrain around the house was to watch.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by B-K-DzR
Stun grenades arent always effective...depends if the men were all in one room/together etc. Even when using stun grenades it isnt too hard for someone to aim in the direction they thought it came from and jut press the trigger. Their aim would be well dodgy but still possible to to do a fair bit of damage.

They are handy where special forces need to get in close, for example, hostage situations.

They were used in the Iran Embassy siege in London in the 80s by the SAS. 5 terrorists were killed but only 2 of the hostages. One gunman survived. Here, stun grenades wern't used to save the lives of the gunmen, but rather to allow the SAS to get close enough to kill only the gunmen.

I'm not sure if they've ever been used to capture live armed men who aren't surrendering.

Cork

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. [/B]

The small little protest RTE showed last night was a bit of a joke. It isso hard to take RTE news seriously. I'd say they'd be more attending the local bridge meeting than the little protest outside the house.

I know that the US should have tried to take the sons alive. They should be accoutable for the grief & hurt the caused. The US should have not stooped to the standards of these thugs.

But on the other hand - the world is better off without these 2 boyos. I hope the world does not not forget about their past activities.

Sand

Great to see those two getting even the briefest taste of the fear, suffering and misery ( poor ol Qursay looks like he didnt get his usual quota of happy meals on the run ) they inflicted on a nation for decades. Women and Children in Iraq can at least know theyre slightly less likely to be abdcuted, raped, tortured, mutilated and murdered.

The reaction of certain elements has been pitiful and yet typical, the usual insane expectation that troops lives should be sacrificed willy nilly in some mad rush or room to room assault, that they should use the trick shots they saw in the movie to shoot the gun out of his hand or some such rubbish.

They had their chance to surrender, they didnt, tough. Asking troops to take uneeded risks is quite wrong - having them prisoner would be nice but it became near impossible when the Husseins decided to fight rather than give in to overwhelming odds.

As for being martyrs, they will be martyrs to a tiny fraction of the sunni muslims who are a minority of the Iraqi population. Theyre not exactly strong martyr candidates being absolutely loathed by your average Iraqi, yes even more than you think they loathe george bush.

Guerilla resistance such as it exists isnt really Saddam loyalists in my opinion, but rather the former ruling classes of the Sunnis who are terrified of their fate in a shia dominated Iraq and feel that US influence in Iraq will mean the end of their traditional dominance ( a bit like loyalists in NI ).

Or they could all be card carrying members of the SWP.

Sparks

http://billmon.org/archives/000394.html

Worth the read. (Even if you're Sand...)

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
Dead Men Don't Testify

Yeah, that's probably why they killed Saddam's personal secretary rather than capturing him. Oh wait...

As you can see from this list, the US have captured far more of their most wanted list than they have killed.

Thirty-five are in custody, 16 remain at large, two have been confirmed killed and two have been reported killed.

If they're trying to kill off high-ranking members of Saddam's regime, they're not doing a very good job of it.

mike65

Just looking back over this thread the thought ocures, why are any of us (even the Yank bashers) wasting thier time on two pieces of scum who'd have happily killed any of you had you given them the slightest unjust cause?

They're gone - now get over it everyone!

Mike.