Saddam's Sons Likely Killed in Firefight, U.S. Officials Say

Originally posted by K_OS
I have been trying to figure out how to word this, and I think I have got it...Qusay was second in command of Sadam's regime, so doesn't that mean we assinated a world leader...Don't we have a policy against that. Now don't get me wrong the guys had it coming, but I wonder where we may draw the line??

_____________________________________________
Be Cool
K_OS

I believe political assasinations were outlawed in the '70's. However, it is hard to argue it is an assassination if the person is shooting at you.

Originally posted by Freddie

I believe political assasinations were outlawed in the '70's. However, it is hard to argue it is an assassination if the person is shooting at you.

That is what I was wondering. I read that we sent 200 troops there after we were informed that they were there. I was just trying to make sure that we aren't going to be brought up on any war crimes..

I guess we'll soon know if Sadam is alive or not...I am sure if he is then he will release another "tape" now that his sons are dead.

_____________________________________________
Be Cool
K_OS

Sorry, did not read page two. I was surprised that Gen. Sanchez said they were dead until waiting for DNA confirmation. They must be very sure considering faulty intelligence being a Pentagon criticizm as of late.

What was the reward? $15m/son?

yes.

And CETCOM has confirmed that they are dead.

regards
seekerof

Now they're saying that the bodies were in an "identifiable condition".

news.bbc.co.uk...

If it is confirmed beyond doubt, this is a huge blow to those still fighting for Saddam.
I would expect retaliation, but in the long term this should help stabilize the situation in Iraq.

It will be interesting to see the reaction of the Iraqi population.

Now its confirmed that they are both dead. The other two bodies have yet to be indentified. Now we just gotta get their daddy.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Being it was a "fire-fight", I doubt that trying to "talk" these guys out would have ended in a "peaceful" solution.

regards
seekerof

bingo
talking wouldnt work. they are muslims, some of the most fundamentalist and ignorant people on the planet. they'd rather die than be captured. kinda like the old school japanees. its about time that some of these bastards were killed. still id like to see the DNA evidence just to be sure.

they are muslims, some of the most fundamentalist and ignorant people on the planet. they'd rather die than be captured. kinda like the old school japanees. its about time that some of these bastards were killed.

Because you are about to be flamed big-time....

(Not by me, but you'll see....)

Not all muslims are fundamentalists....in fact, they are the minority. Also, Saddam's regime was actually pretty secular. What made them such "bad guys" was really more of their harsh treatment towards their own people (gassing them, lowering them into acid, imprisoning children, on the spot executions, that sort of thing...), not their behavior towards the west....

Anywho.... Seems CNN is a little more confident now, and is confirming (snicker, snicker) that they are the ones who died.

ok i take back waht i said. what you said is what i ment. but what about some of the religious leaders that demonize the west? and not to mention they teach hatred towards the west at an early age.


anyways im glad we finally killed those 2 pricks. hopefully things will get easier for our boys in iraq.

2 down 1 to go i hope saddam is practicing bending over and kissing his ass good bye cause its only a matter of time.

[Edited on 22-7-2003 by KrazyIvan]

This is what I was talking about yesterday...

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 and Qusai, that the Bush administration has not bothered to enforce the prohibition.

Consider President Reagan's response when he was asked whether the bombing of Moammar Gadhafi's residence in 1986 constituted an effort to kill the Libyan leader.


"I don't think any of us would have shed tears if that had happened," Reagan said. Over the past five years, U.S.-sponsored assassination attempts have been on the increase. Targets have included Osama bin Laden, former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic among others.

Former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said before the start of the Iraq war that the assassination ban would not apply once hostilities broke out.

Rest of the story can be read here.

_____________________________________________
Be Cool
K_OS



[Edited on 23-7-2003 by K_OS]

Originally posted by K_OS
This is what I was talking about yesterday...

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 and Qusai, that the Bush administration has not bothered to enforce the prohibition.

Consider President Reagan's response when he was asked whether the bombing of Moammar Gadhafi's residence in 1986 constituted an effort to kill the Libyan leader.


"I don't think any of us would have shed tears if that had happened," Reagan said. Over the past five years, U.S.-sponsored assassination attempts have been on the increase. Targets have included Osama bin Laden, former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic among others.

Former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said before the start of the Iraq war that the assassination ban would not apply once hostilities broke out.

Rest of the story can be read here.

_____________________________________________
Be Cool
K_OS



[Edited on 23-7-2003 by K_OS]

it wasnt an assination. saddam's sons were engaged in a fire fight with our boys. thats all nothing more. now if we had some spec op dude off em at a anti west rally in baghdad, thats assination. but being killed is not. its just being killed in a fire fight. So what about our boys then? were they assinated to?

Originally posted by KrazyIvan

it wasnt an assination. saddam's sons were engaged in a fire fight with our boys. thats all nothing more. now if we had some spec op dude off em at a anti west rally in baghdad, thats assination. but being killed is not. its just being killed in a fire fight. So what about our boys then? were they assinated to?

I think you are reading my post wrong, if it comes off that I am defending them. I believe ALL is fair in love and war. I think that our ban is incorrect. We could make some of these problems go away so much easier if we could assassinate. But I am bringing up the point that we will be accused of assassinating world leaders... Next will be whining of war crimes, etc. Does this make it more clear.
I agree completely that our boys and girls (see I can be PC ) are being assassinated, and I think we should be able to do whatever is needed and by any means possible.
_____________________________________________
Be Cool
K_OS

Originally posted by K_OS

Originally posted by KrazyIvan

it wasnt an assination. saddam's sons were engaged in a fire fight with our boys. thats all nothing more. now if we had some spec op dude off em at a anti west rally in baghdad, thats assination. but being killed is not. its just being killed in a fire fight. So what about our boys then? were they assinated to?

I think you are reading my post wrong, if it comes off that I am defending them. I believe ALL is fair in love and war. I think that our ban is incorrect. We could make some of these problems go away so much easier if we could assassinate. But I am bringing up the point that we will be accused of assassinating world leaders... Next will be whining of war crimes, etc. Does this make it more clear.
I agree completely that our boys and girls (see I can be PC

) are being assassinated, and I think we should be able to do whatever is needed and by any means possible.
_____________________________________________
Be Cool
K_OS

we wont be accused of assinating them. like i said before, if some spec op guy wnet in there and offed em at a parade or soemthing then we would be accused. but killing them in a fire fight is just that. they fought aginst our boys and paid the price.its their fault that they are dead.