Breaking News: Saddam's two sons are killed by US Special Forces. - Page 2

Kuciwalker · July 22, 2003, 20:48

Now to find Saddam...

GePap · July 22, 2003, 21:04

The one hitch is that, having died after an intense gun battle, they now become "martyrs who went down fighting hard".

JCG · July 22, 2003, 21:13

Well...it's not like they were exactly "spreaders of love and peace" when they were alive, even inside Saddam's government, not to mention among the masses....so their "martyrdom" will only inspire the worst of Saddam loyalists.

But you're right...this doesn't mean the end of the resistance, not by a longshot, as long as Daddy's still around, etc.

Lonestar · July 22, 2003, 21:27

Have you seen the pic of the house they were in? It looks like we opened up with a dozen anti-tank weapons..

I have this imagine of the Soldier boys surrounding the hide out going "Boys,this is the Utah State police. Come outside with the monkey, and put your hands in the air."

Sprayber · July 22, 2003, 21:28

Call me crazy but the circumstances of their demise doesn't lead me to the conclusion that they were the ones in charge of any group opposing the US. It looks more like they were trying to hide out. So don't get your hopes up that somehow opposition will be hampered by their death.

Lonestar · July 22, 2003, 21:34

I'm not...

But I wonder what they were doing in Mosul (so close to Kurdish-controlled areas)

GePap · July 22, 2003, 21:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Lonestar
I'm not...

But I wonder what they were doing in Mosul (so close to Kurdish-controlled areas)

Mosul was populated with Arabs, and now many of them are afraid the Kurds will try to kick them out and regain the city: these folks are there due to Saddam, so it follows that Saddam will have loyalists there.

Alexander's Horse · July 22, 2003, 21:40

no effect

Agathon · July 22, 2003, 21:49

While I'm the last to cry for these guys it does look a bit like cold blooded murder. After all there were only four guys of whom one was a kid.

Especially since administration figures have basically said all along that they were going to kill SH and his sons IIRC.

I'm pretty sure that's against the Geneva convention.

Lonestar · July 22, 2003, 21:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon
While I'm the last to cry for these guys it does look a bit like cold blooded murder. After all there were only four guys of whom one was a kid.

Especially since administration figures have basically said all along that they were going to kill SH and his sons IIRC.

I'm pretty sure that's against the Geneva convention.

They hadtheir chance to surrender. Often. Boo frickin' hoo

DinoDoc · July 22, 2003, 21:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon
While I'm the last to cry for these guys it does look a bit like cold blooded murder. After all there were only four guys of whom one was a kid.

Do you really think the stand off would have lasted as long as it did if the objective had been to kill them.

GePap · July 22, 2003, 21:54

They were fugitives, and if there was a gun battle, one must assume they were armed (why would they not be armed? For thier own safety at least.)

And yes, the US as the military occupier CAN declare someone a fugitive: it is who they treat them that matters.

Lonestar · July 22, 2003, 21:57

If The United States had wanted to kill them, we'd have just bombed the Hell out of it, not surround the place w/200 men and keep them contained for a few hours.

Agathon · July 22, 2003, 22:02

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Do you really think the stand off would have lasted as long as it did if the objective had been to kill them.

I have no idea of the specifics. I only know that the language flying around before the war was that they were going to kill them.

CorpusScorpius · July 22, 2003, 22:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon

I'm pretty sure that's against the Geneva convention.

Maybe They were Enemy combatants

Agathon · July 22, 2003, 22:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Lonestar
If The United States had wanted to kill them, we'd have just bombed the Hell out of it, not surround the place w/200 men and keep them contained for a few hours.

Did you see the pics of the house?

Anyway, don't be such a tool. Aren't you a soldier? I'll bet you a sum of money that you'd be glad of such conventions if you were ever a prisoner of war. Ask my grandfather, he spent 5 years in a POW camp. Fortunately there were treaties in place so he was fed properly and treated humanely.

Rules like that exist for the benefit of military personnel and non combatants. Ask that Lynch girl (who's not bad lookin' BTW

).

Agathon · July 22, 2003, 22:06

Quote:

Originally posted by CorpusScorpius

Maybe They were Enemy combatants

Don't laugh. If they were firing at US troops then the assault was entirely justified. As I said, no one knows the specifics yet, so why don't we give your lot the benefit of the doubt for the time being.

CorpusScorpius · July 22, 2003, 22:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon

Don't laugh. If they were firing at US troops then the assault was entirely justified. As I said, no one knows the specifics yet, so why don't we give your lot the benefit of the doubt for the time being.

I am not laughing that people lost their lives. I am laughing that on another thread a debate has been raging about the term Enemy Combatants

DinoDoc · July 22, 2003, 22:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon
I have no idea of the specifics.

That explains your statement.

Agathon · July 22, 2003, 22:14

Quote:

Originally posted by CorpusScorpius

I am not laughing that people lost their lives. I am laughing that on another thread a debate has been raging about the term Enemy Combatants

Oh, I misunderstood.

A thousand apologies.

CorpusScorpius · July 22, 2003, 22:16

Ag....no need to apologize allthough it is appreciated

Agathon · July 22, 2003, 22:17

Quote:

Originally posted by CorpusScorpius
Ag....no need to apologize allthough it is appreciated

Manners maketh the man, even if he is a subversive commie traitor.

Kuciwalker · July 22, 2003, 22:29

That's the Guantanamo thread, right?

I stopped posting in it after a while...

Dr Strangelove · July 22, 2003, 22:41

I wonder, given that they were securely contained and that their besiegers allowed the action to go on for so long it would seem reasonable that the US forces were indeed trying to take them alive. Might they have committed suicide?

Ted Striker · July 22, 2003, 23:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
murderers! Why no trial ?! why no due process?!!

I think he was being sacrastic since Israelis get alot of **** about doing this sort of thing all the time.

Berzerker · July 22, 2003, 23:08

Playing with lives:

I just heard coalition forces launched the raid after a walk-in informant offered up the location of these guys. Now, why do we, and the Iraqi resistance need to know that? I'm sure that would give the remaining loyalists reason to fear each other, even if just a little, but wouldn't that also mean Iraqis under any suspicion are now in danger? Would you want to be murdered because a loyalist thought you were an informant because of a heightened, even paranoid fear resulting from the knowledge that an informant gave up Saddam's sons? I suppose the loyalists already fear potential informants, so maybe this information is inconsequential, but if I was an Iraqi with information, I'd certainly feel threatened by the mind games being played.

Kuciwalker · July 22, 2003, 23:10

The tip was that his sons were there, not that they were loyalists

Berzerker · July 22, 2003, 23:44

Coalition forces are fighting loyalists, and I certainly consider the sons as "loyalists" - loyal to remaining in power.

Giancarlo · July 22, 2003, 23:49

Good riddance to two awful murderers!

Ned · July 22, 2003, 23:59

If the 101st Airborne were trying to kill them, they would have surrounded the house and then dropped three or four smart bombs on the place.

I find it incredible though that the two sons wanted to go down fighting. Did they fear something worse than death if they were captured?