SADDAMS SONS CONFIRMED DEAD

Originally posted by kitty
The BBC is just too much:

Saddam sons 'dead'. Not only do they put scare quotes around the word �dead� in their headline, they have a sidebar with a quote from a �Palestinian� named only �Ebiat,� who intones:

It would be better to stop exaggeration of unimportant events like these and be aware that the illegal coalition existence in Iraq will end one day, even if Saddam's DNA went away.

Oh no, no bias here.

turd balls

BBC = Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation. Bastards.

Whats it got to do with the Coalition that Saddams sons were killers?

i dont understand how you can NOT hate them so much

BBC tells it like it is.
You can't stand it because it doesn't kiss the admins butt

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Interesting, codes.

I assume you have read the 'news' of the conclusive raid, killing of both brothers and DNA testing...

How could it possibly be wrong? (again?)

So have the DNA tests been released yet?

What the [SNIP] has it got to do with you or me if U & D did kill people.

[Edited on 23-7-2003 by Lexus Panther]



censor circumvention removed

[edit on 11/9/08 by masqua]

Actually, some BBC embedded reporters resigned because their stories were twisted around by the editors to make it look like the coalition was not kicking arse. Who is twisting the truth?

:::hacks off little red tongue with a butcher knife:::

ya think its halal?

Originally posted by Pyros
New information

Also, it appears that both brothers were killed when a soldier fired a TOW missile from his jeep into the building. I wonder what condition the bodies are in.....

==========================================

I wonder what the rationale was to fire a TOW against small arms fire. Did we run out of tear gas and sleeping gas ???

tut

Ok you'll agree that its confirmed and denied.
Crystal clear.

Originally posted by Lexus Panther
What the fu*k has it got to do with you or me if U & D did kill people.

[Edited on 23-7-2003 by Lexus Panther]

What do you want then? Do you want good nations like Britain and America to stand-by and let people mass-murder and build up their military? Do you want such nations to intervene? Or do you want such nations to wait until the world comes crying to us to do something? Regardless the likes of you will criticize any action taken or not taken.

If you're such a patriot give the French their statue back

Originally posted by tututkamen


I wonder what the rationale was to fire a TOW against small arms fire. Did we run out of tear gas and sleeping gas ???

tut

Did Saddams boys run out of gas masks?

People enough of the uber-short posts. Enough of the sentance long posts please. Thats means you Lexus nad Kitty.

We all now know (with the help of the BBC and British Government and the US Admin) that we had no reason to invade Iraq and no reason to occupy it. So what the fu*k has it got to do with us.
Does Saddam tell Bush who should be executed in Texas.

I cannot even fathom that people are debating about whether these two arseholes should have been taken out. Their hobbies included going to weddings, raping the bride, and executing the husband. After Uday got partially paralyzied, he got more brutal and developed a fondness for 12-13 year-old girls. He had deals with the principals of schools. Oh, nevermind, you people make me too angry. These people are sick, sick, sick and deserved to die. The reason why we did not simply drop a couple of 2,000 lb. bombs on the house is because we wanted Qusay alive because he probably has information on the whereabouts of his father. Uday was not trusted with such information.

Sorry, due to the occupation of Scotland by the English that is the only language that I can read and write.

Originally posted by Lexus Panther

Does Saddam tell Bush who should be executed in Texas.

No, the majority of people of Texas told Bush who should be executed. Unfortunately Saddam was about executing the majority of his people - nobody could tell him anything.

You claim to hang onto every word that the BBC tells you yet you don't believe it when they either make mistakes or deliberately foul up. If the BBC says something is White why must that always be true? History has time and time again shown the media quite often gets things wrong. Add to that a media with a political agenda and you have a news source that it is very difficult to trust.
The problem is that some people only believe the media when they want to. When it serves their own beliefs.
Placing all of your trust in media sources is silly. The media itself has created it's own bad reputation. I choose to look at both sides for my sources of information.
People who place all of their trust in News Corporations are naive.

Originally posted by Lexus Panther
We all now know (with the help of the BBC and British Government and the US Admin) that we had no reason to invade Iraq and no reason to occupy it. So what the fu*k has it got to do with us.
Does Saddam tell Bush who should be executed in Texas.

No reason to invade? Did you read the entire thread, or are you just dense?

thanks for the lecture old man
where do you get your info, God?