View Full Version : Saddams Sons
Well, Finally they've been captured.. Just gotta wait for saddam now.
Do you agree that there pictures (after death) Should of been shown in Newspapers, and Live on TV?..Do you think it breaches War Agreements?
I think it does, But still think they were correct in showing them..
Anyway, Saddams not got long :D
America has yet again shown how hypocritical it can be. When the bodies of the dead troops were shown on Iraqi TV, it was 'barbaric', but of course because good ol' Uncle Sam is doing it, it's "different".
Stuart W
26-07-2003, 20:57
Yes Russ, it is VERY different.
They showed ordinary troops.
The Americans are trying their hardest to prove that the brothers realy are dead.
We are I'm sure all aware how Iraq uses lies and eception as a matter of course. It will be a difficult task to prove the brothers are dead without a semi-public autopsy.
I'd bet pound to penny that Iraqi people are being told that America has fallen for the "lookalike" trick, and that the brothers are actually safe and well.
I agree. It was distasteful but necessary. A lot of arabs still think that 9/11 was perpetrated by the yanks:eek: . They seem to need a lot of convincing that something is true before they believe it.
Stuart W
26-07-2003, 21:45
Let's be fair, this is a nation of people who have suffered under sadman hussain's rule and are ready to believe what they are told or risk being killed / tortured or worse.
Once you have lived like that for a while, someone comes along and says "It's OK, I killed 'em" you're gonna need convincing!
Imagin the punishment for being publicly pleased that they are dead only to find out they are alive and well and on their way round!
Personaly, I believe they are dead. I understand the medical proof esp. the x-rays etc. but I am a western educated man from a (semi) free country.
[User Edit] Didn't want to double post & had more to say!
Originally posted by Russ D
America has yet again shown how hypocritical it can be. When the bodies of the dead troops were shown on Iraqi TV, it was 'barbaric', but of course because good ol' Uncle Sam is doing it, it's "different".
Is seeing pictures of dead kids sick?
I would imagin right now you are thinking "Damn yes!" and you would be correct.... but..... what about the mother of a teenage girl who decided to publish pictures of her daughter dead on her bedroom floor in a bid to try and get youngsters off hard drugs?
I'm in agreement with her. Under certain circumstances, it is important to show pictures of the dead.
Originally posted by Stuart W
Is seeing pictures of dead kids sick?
I would imagin right now you are thinking "Damn yes!" and you would be correct.... but..... what about the mother of a teenage girl who decided to publish pictures of her daughter dead on her bedroom floor in a bid to try and get youngsters off hard drugs?
I'm in agreement with her. Under certain circumstances, it is important to show pictures of the dead. Good point.
etccarmageddon
26-07-2003, 23:15
Originally posted by Stuart W
what about the mother of a teenage girl who decided to publish pictures of her daughter dead on her bedroom floor in a bid to try and get youngsters off hard drugs?
I'm in agreement with her. Under certain circumstances, it is important to show pictures of the dead.
good point...
so did the next of kin authorise the yanks to publish the pics of saddam's 2 dead sons?
I can understand where Russ is coming from on this - it's double standards to complain about breaking the geneva convention by showing dead american troops but then thinking it's acceptable to show dead iraqi leaders.
Did they even ASK the iraqi people or at least wait to be asked to publish photographic proof? It appears to me that they rushed these photos out to the media.
Stuart W
26-07-2003, 23:23
Originally posted by etccarmageddon
good point...
so did the next of kin authorise the yanks to publish the pics of saddam's 2 dead sons?
I can understand where Russ is coming from on this - it's double standards to complain about breaking the geneva convention by showing dead american troops but then thinking it's acceptable to show dead iraqi leaders.
Simple. The dead american troops were just that. troops. Showing the pics of their bodies did nothing but antagonise. There was no need to show the bodies as the Americans, like us, let people know there have been deaths and even name the individual soldiers in most cases.
The brothers were evil tyrants who tortured and killed every day. They butchered entire families and raped young girls for days on end.
The americans needed to post pics to prove the death of the brothers as so many Iraqi's will remain scared of showing they are pleased with the deaths just in case the brothers are fine and about to take leadership again.
Let's not forget the kind of news buletins they showed during the conflict! "The Americans cannot get into Baghdad. They are miles away" etc. I fully expect them to be telling the Iraqi people that the brothers are fine and well and living with Sadman Hussain somewhere waiting to take leadership back again.
If we can convince the Iraqi people that they are dead and Sadman is to follow, they will inevitably rebel against what's left of the 'old' leadership and with any luck, help us iradicate terrorism.
Oh, and as for next of kins permission, Sadman can call any american embasy and pop in to sue ;)
I suppose that, given the reaction of the Iraqis on seeing the footage, there was a point in showing it.
But I agree with Russ, that the US is being extremely hypocrytical. They will do whatever they see fit when it suits their purposes, and are very quick to quote the Geneva convention when Iraq showed footage of captured american soldiers (even though we saw captured Iraqis before that).
Also, Let's not forget the US are holding hundreds of people at Guantanamo Bay. They can hold these people indefinitely without even charging them. Under present law, any person arriving at a US airport can be wizzed off to Guantanamo Bay without authorities having to prove there is any suspicion against this person.
But hey, these people at Guantanamo Bay are not prisoners of war, these are 'illegal combatants' caught in the war on terror. I guess it must be ok then...
Stuart W
26-07-2003, 23:33
Come on!
Sort yourselves out!!
When HAVN'T the Americans had double standards!!
All I'm saying is, this time I agree with them!!
etccarmageddon
26-07-2003, 23:38
Originally posted by danielf
Let's not forget the US are holding hundreds of people at Guantanamo Bay. They can hold these people indefinitely without even charging them. Under present law, any person arriving at a US airport can be wizzed off to Guantanamo Bay without authorities having to prove there is any suspicion against this person.
But hey, these people at Guantanamo Bay are not prisoners of war, these are 'illegal combatants' caught in the war on terror. I guess it must be ok then...
yeah it's understandable that the US could behave like this in the aftermath of 9/11 but it's been 2 years now - yes back then we could accept guantanamo bay because the USA was in a kind of 'state of emergency' but 2 years on it's about time it was wound down.
Stuart W
26-07-2003, 23:45
But there must be an arguement that the fact that there has been no major terorist attack is partly a result of the effectivnes of guantanamo bay!
Sorry, normaly I wouldn't side with the Americans, but recently, I have had to agree with their ideas. Harsh, yes. Effective, YES!
Originally posted by Stuart W
But there must be an arguement that the fact that there has been no major terorist attack is partly a result of the effectivnes of guantanamo bay!
I am very sorry, but if I have ever heard someone mistake a correlation for causality then this really beats it.
Yes, arrest people, incarcarate them, try them etc. But: obey human rights. The US is supposed to be the 'land of the free'. Right now it's more like the land of 'abuse human rights whenever you see fit, because we can get away with it'.
Originally posted by etccarmageddon
Did they even ASK the iraqi people or at least wait to be asked to publish photographic proof? It appears to me that they rushed these photos out to the media.
On the contrary, the Iraqi people were *demanding* proof that they were actually dead.
See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3093637.stm for instance, although even now people still have doubts that it is them.
I think in this case the showing of the pictures was justified because the Iraqi people have lived in fear of these men for so long that only categorical proof would be enough to convince them that they're really dead.
Originally posted by Stuart W
Let's be fair, this is a nation of people who have suffered under sadman hussain's rule and are ready to believe what they are told or risk being killed / tortured or worse.
Once you have lived like that for a while, someone comes along and says "It's OK, I killed 'em" you're gonna need convincing!
Imagin the punishment for being publicly pleased that they are dead only to find out they are alive and well and on their way round!
Personaly, I believe they are dead. I understand the medical proof esp. the x-rays etc. but I am a western educated man from a (semi) free country.
[User Edit] Didn't want to double post & had more to say!
I would imagin right now you are thinking "Damn yes!" and you would be correct.... but..... what about the mother of a teenage girl who decided to publish pictures of her daughter dead on her bedroom floor in a bid to try and get youngsters off hard drugs?
I'm in agreement with her. Under certain circumstances, it is important to show pictures of the dead.
Side-stepping any pretences of being judgmental there, whether the bodies shown on tv were troops, dictators or the average man in the street is irrelevant - the US cannot complain about Iraq showing dead bodies on tv during their own crusade for 'peace' while doing exactly the same for their own agendas.
Originally posted by Russ D
Side-stepping any pretences of being judgmental there, whether the bodies shown on tv were troops, dictators or the average man in the street is irrelevant - the US cannot complain about Iraq showing dead bodies on tv during their own crusade for 'peace' while doing exactly the same for their own agendas.
Was it for there own agenda's though? They Said themselves they didnt want to show the bodies (Or didnt want to contravene the Geneva Convention).. But there was No other way to prove that the mass murderers were dead.
Originally posted by Steve_NTL
Was it for there own agenda's though? They Said themselves they didnt want to show the bodies (Or didnt want to contravene the Geneva Convention).. But there was No other way to prove that the mass murderers were dead.
But then again, how easy is it to believe any political statement by the US?
I totally agree that the US seem to deliver more codswobble than the Iraqi Information Minister, But I feel that what they did was utterly fair, even though it went against the Convention.
Right now it's more like the land of 'abuse human rights whenever you see fit, because we can get away with it'.
Bull****. Don't **** on my country if the majority of the world is doing a much better job of it. I mean, just look at Mugabe.
And in case you don't understand how the pictures were obtained, the United States let the press in and they took pictures, and they made it public. The United States also didn't critisize Iraq for publishing the pictures, because they didn't, but the U.S. government did critisize al Jaheerza for publishing it. If you want to critisize someone for publishing the pictures of Saddam's two sons, you should be critisizing the news agencies! NOT the U.S. government! They didn't publish it!
Originally posted by Jerrek
Bull****. Don't **** on my country if the majority of the world is doing a much better job of it. I mean, just look at Mugabe.
And in case you don't understand how the pictures were obtained, the United States let the press in and they took pictures, and they made it public. The United States also didn't critisize Iraq for publishing the pictures, because they didn't, but the U.S. government did critisize al Jaheerza for publishing it. If you want to critisize someone for publishing the pictures of Saddam's two sons, you should be critisizing the news agencies! NOT the U.S. government! They didn't publish it!
Oh come on!!! Are you really that naive to think that there wouldn't be HUGE media demand on the american government when it was announced that these photos were taken?
What about when/if Bin Laden is (finally) caught? Can you see your government saying "Let's take some snaps, but we don't want them to end up on the front of every newspaper in the world"?
Originally posted by Jerrek
If you want to critisize someone for publishing the pictures of Saddam's two sons, you should be critisizing the news agencies! NOT the U.S. government! They didn't publish it!
:erm: the bodies where held by the US army, touched up by US army morticians, and shown in a US army medical tent - yet they had nothing to do with the pictures being released?
timewarrior2001
28-07-2003, 10:14
Does it really matter?
At the end of the day death is somethign that willhappen to all of us. I dont understand why theres censorship over it.
Ok I can see why normal everyday soldiers bodies could cause problems, but their famaily and themselves accept they do a dangerous job and one day something might happen to them.
War is a waste of life on both sides, but sometimes it has to happen, unfortunately for those that died in the gulf recently it didnt have to happen.......these weapons still havent been found (some of you will remember that I was against the war from the start).
I do think America is going too far with its foreign policy, its creating more and more enemies not creating peace. Ok so saddam isnt ruling Iraq, where is he? where are these wmd's? does saddam actually have access ot these alleged wmd's?
Is bin ladin with saddam?
Since sept 11th the world has become a really dangerous place, America talked a brave talk but the action never quite lived up to it. Afghanistan is free of the Taliban, but they are no better off. Iraq is free of saddam yet he is still a threat, Bin ladin cannot be found but he is still active.
As for these prisoners in Cuba, stuff em, what were brits doing in afghanistan when a) they arent afghanistani b) they knew there was going to be a war.
I dont care what their families say they were there to cause trouble, they now MUST face the consequences. Americas idea of a fair trail does leave somehting to be desired, but hey, we all know these guys shouldnt have been there anyway.
It worries me that people are so bothered by the pictures of saddams sons, personally I am more bothered about the US provoking a nuclear or biological attack on the west.
Wasnt there a poll on NTL that said 85% of people considered GWB more of a threat to world peace than saddam?
orangebird
28-07-2003, 10:21
It was distressing to see the photos, but IMO I wouldn't have believed it otherwise. Some of the tosh that has been spouted from across the pond has made me sceptical of a lot of what the US Govt. come out with.
Dave Stones
28-07-2003, 10:44
Originally posted by Jerrek
Bull****. Don't **** on my country if the majority of the world is doing a much better job of it. <snip>[/i]
but... you're canadian...
the way i see it, just like when the US troops were shown on tv, you dont have to watch it if you dont want it. i was in the USA at the time and on CNN etc they advised viewers to look away if they didnt want to see it. you werent exactly forced to look at the bodies, there is more than one channel to watch or window to look out of when they are showing them..
Originally posted by timewarrior2001
Since sept 11th the world has become a really dangerous place, America talked a brave talk but the action never quite lived up to it. Afghanistan is free of the Taliban, but they are no better off. Iraq is free of saddam yet he is still a threat, Bin ladin cannot be found but he is still active.
The only reason the world has become a dangerous place since 9/11 is because GWB has MADE it one!
Why did the US invade afghanistan? because some of the hijackers went there - lets ignore the fact that most of those hijackers were from saudi arabia - and the report published about that event had pages of details about those saudi hijackers censored by the us government!
But hey - the us now control a major oil pipeline going through asia so lets forget the small details......
And what about saddam and the threat he posed.... what threat? the US was trying to link him and bin laden together - yet EVERY integence report that came to light catergorically stated they couldnt stand one another. Bin laden himslf was quoted as calling saddam 'The Infidel' - hardly pillow talk :erm:
ahhh, well, he had all those WMD and was a serious threat to the west....oh hang on...we had better change our tune here now we have invaded, kicked him out of power and are the occupying force in a country that does not want us there - the same country where after 4 months of frantic looking, WMD have STILL to be found...("well, he obviously destroyed them before we invaded" - so, in other words, he did what you told him to do, but you invaded anyway :rolleyes: )
so no more talk of WMD, lets all pat ourselves on the back for ridding the globe of an evil leader..... just a bit odd we do that in an oil rich country, and leave FAR WORSE tyrants in far poorer countries to do what they want - mugabe et al spring to mind...
And who is the US making noises againsed now? Iran - ANOTHER oil rich country :erm:
So in a year the US has made threats (and action), under the guise of fighting international terrorism, towards 3 countries and the only things that link them are very tenous links to terrorism, oh, and a massive abundance of oil - yet other dictatorships, with oppressive murderous regimes get hardly a mention - call me cynical but i somehow doubt 'fighting the good fight' is the US' main objective here....
*gets off soap box*
Originally posted by Stuart W
Yes Russ, it is VERY different.
They showed ordinary troops.
The Americans are trying their hardest to prove that the brothers realy are dead.
We are I'm sure all aware how Iraq uses lies and eception as a matter of course. It will be a difficult task to prove the brothers are dead without a semi-public autopsy.
I'd bet pound to penny that Iraqi people are being told that America has fallen for the "lookalike" trick, and that the brothers are actually safe and well.
I agree with you and Russ.
Yes it's different as "our" POW's were ordinary troops but Sadamms sons were both human to. Human rights is for ALL humans whether they have done right or wrong. The only reason the pictures were released was an attempt to prove to the Iraq's that the brothers were dead. That's it! When the situation suits us were bend the rules but kick up when another country does it.
Plus, what abaout Udays son of 14? He was killed. Is that okay??????? I don't suppose for one minute he killed or wounded anyone?
timewarrior2001
28-07-2003, 13:44
Originally posted by Mark W
The only reason the world has become a dangerous place since 9/11 is because GWB has MADE it one!
Why did the US invade afghanistan? because some of the hijackers went there - lets ignore the fact that most of those hijackers were from saudi arabia - and the report published about that event had pages of details about those saudi hijackers censored by the us government!
But hey - the us now control a major oil pipeline going through asia so lets forget the small details......
And what about saddam and the threat he posed.... what threat? the US was trying to link him and bin laden together - yet EVERY integence report that came to light catergorically stated they couldnt stand one another. Bin laden himslf was quoted as calling saddam 'The Infidel' - hardly pillow talk :erm:
ahhh, well, he had all those WMD and was a serious threat to the west....oh hang on...we had better change our tune here now we have invaded, kicked him out of power and are the occupying force in a country that does not want us there - the same country where after 4 months of frantic looking, WMD have STILL to be found...("well, he obviously destroyed them before we invaded" - so, in other words, he did what you told him to do, but you invaded anyway :rolleyes: )
so no more talk of WMD, lets all pat ourselves on the back for ridding the globe of an evil leader..... just a bit odd we do that in an oil rich country, and leave FAR WORSE tyrants in far poorer countries to do what they want - mugabe et al spring to mind...
And who is the US making noises againsed now? Iran - ANOTHER oil rich country :erm:
So in a year the US has made threats (and action), under the guise of fighting international terrorism, towards 3 countries and the only things that link them are very tenous links to terrorism, oh, and a massive abundance of oil - yet other dictatorships, with oppressive murderous regimes get hardly a mention - call me cynical but i somehow doubt 'fighting the good fight' is the US' main objective here....
*gets off soap box*
Hey I agree, If i could find my posts on the .com site, posted before the war, I said that comming Iraq war is just a way to screw over opec by possessing Iraqi oil.
The US is alienating most of the world, including Europe. Theres no way anyone is going to want to have anything to do with the UN now, not after Bush n Blair destroyed it. What about NATO, is the US too large for NATO to protect it, well someone better explain to Mr I'm an American idiot bush thats not the point of NATO.
Its a horrible thing to say, but I think its going to take another Spet 11th before the US administration comes to its senses and realises that its democracy is failing, it has become imperialistic and no matter how much it throws its weight around it cannot and will never be able to, change international law.
its also funny how, until Clinton came into power, that the US gov funded the IRA. you know the Irish republican Army, who blow women and children apart with bombs in city centre litter bins and shops.
All because no administration wanted to lose the Irish american vote.
Well I say this to the Irish americans, if Ireland is so bloody good why dont you live there? And to the US, I say, practice what you preach, your gov is corrupt, you interfere in too many other countries and the results are attacks on the US.
Beleive it or not, most of the world doesnt love the american way of life, we dont want nor need the american way of life.
Originally posted by Dave Stones
but... you're canadian... I know. :) But I have U.S. citizenship too, and another one from another country. Evne funnier is that I had legal name changes and that one country got my birthdate wrong, something which can't be corrected. So I have three passports with different names, different birthdates, and the same picture. lol.
orangebird
28-07-2003, 16:48
Timewarrior & Mark W - I applaude you both on your most recent posts. Couldn't agree more.
:)
Originally posted by darant
I agree with you and Russ.
Yes it's different as "our" POW's were ordinary troops but Sadamms sons were both human to. Human rights is for ALL humans whether they have done right or wrong. The only reason the pictures were released was an attempt to prove to the Iraq's that the brothers were dead. That's it! When the situation suits us were bend the rules but kick up when another country does it.
Plus, what abaout Udays son of 14? He was killed. Is that okay??????? I don't suppose for one minute he killed or wounded anyone?
Still no one has mentioned uday's son in all this........
timewarrior2001
28-07-2003, 17:18
Originally posted by darant
Still no one has mentioned uday's son in all this........
Didnt his son dote on him? If thats the case as sad as it seems, he's probably better off dead. If the people of Iraq had gotten hold of him then he would wish he had been killed.
They say like father like son, ok yes he was young, I doubt he was innocent. you cant grow up in an environment like that and stay "normal".
dozysplot
03-08-2003, 16:06
Didnt his son dote on him? If thats the case as sad as it seems, he's probably better off dead. If the people of Iraq had gotten hold of him then he would wish he had been killed.
They say like father like son, ok yes he was young, I doubt he was innocent. you cant grow up in an environment like that and stay "normal".
Probably not, he was no doubt brought up in the image of his father.
But lets face facts here, the amount of firepower the americans put on that house, they didn't want any survivors
Originally posted by dozysplot
But lets face facts here, the amount of firepower the americans put on that house, they didn't want any survivors
I don't agree, they escalated the amount of force used slowly over a period of about 3.5 hours (according to radio 4 at the time)
They originally sent troops into the building, resulting in three casualties. Then they used megaphones, which just got them shot at. Small arms, then rpg's and so on.
The US knew that if they could get them alive and put them on trial, the propaganda and cathartic (for the Iraqis) value would have been immense.
btw....if you spellcheck dozysplot it tries to change your name to despot:D
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.