SADDAMS SONS CONFIRMED DEAD, page 7


Pages: <<  4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 23-7-2003 @ 10:26 PM by MaskedAvatar
Yesterday's news (I think, but it could be today due to time differences)

www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...

Uday and Qusey Dead. Again

In just a few short months since the beginning of the latest Iraqi campaign the US forces claimed to have killed Saddam Hussein on at least four different occasions. The number of false claims of Saddam’s demise was only exceeded by the number of false WMD discoveries. Now Saddam’s two sons and his 14-year-old grandson have taken their turn on the altar of Pentagon’s propaganda machine.

There are many similarities between the previous claims of Saddam’s death and the latest announcement by the US military that Saddam’s two sons were killed in a firefight with the US troops. Naturally and as usual the big news arrived with a certain degree of ambiguity: the bodies of the two sons – Uday and Qusay – were extensively burned – possibly beyond recognition – Reuters cited US military sources.

Suddenly, the US general became uncharacteristically optimistic. Now they were absolutely certain that the two bodies discovered at the site of the reported firefight were those of Saddam’s two sons and his grandson. Supposedly, someone then found the bodies were not burned to the crisp after all but just riddled with bullets. US generals reported that someone well familiar with both Uday and Qusay identified their bodies.

Another commonality with the previous claims of successful attacks against Iraqi leadership: the location of Saddam’s sons and his closest aides was revealed to the US military by an Iraqi informant. This almost reminds me of the tearful, albeit untrue, story of the rescue of Private Ryan. I mean Private Lynch. Iraqi informant, a glorious battle fought by the US soldiers and the pompous announcement by the US Army command in Qatar.

Just as when Saddam and his sons were killed in that restaurant bombing in Baghdad in April, the DNA evidence is set to reveal the final truth about the latest claim. Just as a reminder: in the April incident it turned out that there was no Saddam or his sons in that restaurant. Hell, there was no restaurant. Of course, there was no announcement of any DNA testing results. The British MI6 kind of soured the milk for Pentagon by leaking counterclaims to the press. Goddamned James Bonds.

One may also recall the bombing of the Baath party headquarters in Basra during the early weeks of the war. Then the US military claimed that up to 200 Baath party members (including possibly the big man himself or his brood) were killed. Apparently, the entire Baath party elite decided to gather at the headquarters in Basra. This building has been constantly bombed by the coalition ever since the war begun and practically had a target sign painted on it. Can you think of a better place for Iraqi party elite to hide? Apparently neither did the USAF command.

Saddam’s sons, the US military claims, have been “hiding” at a palatial villa in Mosul – the huge home belonging to the local tribal leader. There have been photos of it on Yahoo News a couple months back: the villa had US “Abrams” tanks parked in front of it - another safe place for the Iraqi leadership to weather out the US occupation. It’s like if Washington has been occupied by the Russians and Bush was hiding in the Oval Office.

But the claim of Udey's and Qusey’s untimely demise did not go unnoticed: the US troops got the MUCH needed morale boost after weeks of grim reports from the occupied territories. And the US stock market is not doing too bad either: whoever knew about the upcoming announcement of the possible death of Uday and Qusay must have made a killing on the trading floor in just a few short hours.


reply posted on 23-7-2003 @ 10:30 PM by MaskedAvatar
For Illmatic

Policy on murders - quite unclear.

WASHINGTON TODAY: Assassination ban still on books but widely ignored

GEORGE GEDDA, Associated Press Writer Tuesday, July 22, 2003

In theory, pursuing with intent to kill violates a long-standing policy banning political assassination. It was the misfortune of Saddam Hussein's sons that the Bush administration has not bothered to enforce the prohibition.

Acting on a tip from an informant, the brothers were killed during a six-hour raid Tuesday at a palatial villa in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul. They ranked just below their father in the deposed regime. Odai, in particular, had a reputation for brutality.

Officials said people inside the villa opened fire first -- but left little doubt what the U.S. troops hoped to accomplish.

"We remain focused on finding, fixing, killing or capturing all members of the high-value target list," Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of coalition troops in Iraq, announcing the deaths of Odai and Qusai.

The ban has been overlooked so often in recent years that some wonder why the administration doesn't simply declare the measure null and void.

Earlier this week, the U.S. administrator for Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, stated in usually candid terms the administration's disregard for the assassination ban. Appearing on NBC TV's "Meet the Press," Bremer said U.S. officials presumed that Saddam was still alive and that American forces were trying to kill him.

"The sooner we can either kill him or capture him, the better," Bremer said. Often in the past, officials resorted to winks and nods or other circumlocutions when asked about U.S. actions that gave the appearance of homicidal intent.

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.

"People who are in charge of fighting the war to kill United States troops cannot assume that they will be safe," Fleischer said, making clear that Saddam would not be exempt.

Bremer says the rationale for going after Saddam now even though he is no longer in power is that he remains a rallying point for supporters.

The ban on assassinations, spelled out in an executive order signed by President Ford in 1976 and reinforced by Presidents Carter and Reagan, made no distinction between wartime and peacetime. There are no loop holes; no matter how awful the leader, he could not be a U.S. target either directly or by a hired hand.


reply posted on 23-7-2003 @ 10:54 PM by MaskedAvatar
Working on it.

J/K.
Pages: <<  4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^