Their death is confirmed, there where surrender in Mossoul and where killed during the US assault. The elder of the two son, was a dangerous evil psychopath. The other one, was the cool blooded face of Saddam dictature, and was supposed to replace his father.
This is a good new. I expect that Saddam will be next.
Are you people really so diluted that you think the US can surround the house and "arrest" them? This is the same diluted thinking that believes that OBL is a "criminal" to be "brought to justice".
It's called "war". People fight and die.
Yes kids, and that's why we shot the Nazi commanders dead like the dogs they were rather than try them publicly for their crimes.
To show the world that senseless killing is wrong we have to kill such people without thought. It's not as if we could have "arrested" them, "tried" them and "imprisoned" them or any of that liberal hogwash. The very thought is ludicrous.
Yes kids, and that's why we shot the Nazi commanders dead like the dogs they were rather than try them publicly for their crimes.
To show the world that senseless killing is wrong we have to kill such people without thought. It's not as if we could have "arrested" them, "tried" them and "imprisoned" them or any of that liberal hogwash. The very thought is ludicrous.
Beep Beep Beep Beep Beep Beep Earth to stupider...likeafox Beep Beep Beep Beep Beep Beep come in stupider...likeafox Beep Beep Beep Beep This just in. Nazis that surrendered were taken prisoner. Beep Beep Beep Beep Beep Beep Those that fought to the death Beep Beep Beep Beep Beep Beep are Beep Beep Beep Beep Beep Beep dead Beep Beep Beep Beep Beep Beep. End transmission.
So your crystal ball tells you that OBL would always fight to the death rather than be captured. Nice to know!
You can't be serious with this line of thought. There is only one way to deal with terrorists: Hunt them and kill them. Period. These guys are literally fanatics. They are not going to surrender for the most part.
On the sons: This kind of military operation has the goal of capturing or killing the principal(s). At the press conference, the general indicated they did attempt to get a surrender first. They also received small arms fire. I suppose they're just supposed to wait them out? Criticizing the military for (GASP!) killing the enemy is really ridiculous. These guys more than deserved whatever they got.
Scott:
Quote:
Are you people really so diluted that you think the US can surround the house and "arrest" them? This is the same diluted thinking that believes that OBL is a "criminal" to be "brought to justice".
It's called "war". People fight and die. Today is was two of the worst people (ooosp I should be so judgmental, what right do I have?) on the face of the planet. Guilty of far worse than rape, murde
Perhaps I can answer: "Yes". That's exactly how deluded some here are...and in the press (judging by the conference I just saw).
Many liberals believe this should be treated like a criminal court case. We should have gone into Afghanistan with some sort of international police force and aprehended UBL. Then, we'd go home. This is delusional in the extreme, and it's one more reason liberals cannot be trusted with national security. Thsi is war. It's not pretty, but it's needed.
So your crystal ball tells you that OBL would always fight to the death rather than be captured. Nice to know!
Did I say that? Hummmm I don't think so. People just need to realize that this is war. Not law enforcement. If the US caught sight of Saddam or OBL in the sites of an armed drone then they (we) would be well within the rules of war to shoot first and ask questions of anyone survives.
There is only one way to deal with terrorists: Hunt them and kill them. Period.
I guess you're not counting "fund them" and "train them" which have been two other popular methods of (more literally) dealing with terrorists in the recent past.
But beyond that minor historical blind-spot, I'll think you'll find that most other first-world nations at least *pretend* that they are trying to capture and try terrorists.
Er, what is this argument about? So they were killed. Who is to say the US soldiers weren't attempting to capture them? (And, for that matter, try them in one form or another. But that's another debate, and a moot one at this point.) Does anyone here claim to know, or is everyone just injecting their own political leanings to guess what's going on in other people's heads and to try to divine the details of something we know oh so little about? There is no argument to be made here. They were killed. Anything else right now is heresay.
Er, what is this argument about? So they were killed. Who is to say the US soldiers weren't attempting to capture them?
Well I'm not arguing with the facts, I'm arguing with the opinion that killing them (and OBL, and any other terrorist(tm)) rather than even attempting to capture them is Kool & The Gang.
i heard this morning the troops couldn't get in the building w/o coming under heavy fire, so they took TOW rockects mounted on Humvees and fired those suckers into the house.
Britain and the US in particular no longer declare a war as then they would be bound by the Geneva Convention and therefore certain of their activities would be curtailed if not actually punished.
It's tough luck if you're in Guantanamo, but it cuts both ways and so may also be the reason for the 'shoot to kill' attitude as opposed to trial for the 'enemy combatants'. They can't invoke the GC against them despite all the 'war crimes' rhetoric. Otherwise they surely would - nothing like a good old show trial, plays better than mass carnage too. With some people anyway.
This is a tactic of dubious morality imo - I mean they break almost all other treaties, why not go for broke ?
I guess you're not counting "fund them" and "train them" which have been two other popular methods of (more literally) dealing with terrorists in the recent past.
But beyond that minor historical blind-spot, I'll think you'll find that most other first-world nations at least *pretend* that they are trying to capture and try terrorists.
A perfect example of straw man, disingenuous liberal argument. You know damn well what I meant.
Kyoto, ABM treaty, Nuclear test ban treaty (Rebound - 1997), treaty on Ozone about to be binned....
My God. Some classic liberalism here.
Kyoto was never and WILL never be ratified by the US sentate because it exempts 80% of the world's biggest polluters. It's a sham.
ABM is irrellevant in today's world. The Soviets Union does not even exist anymore. It was signed by two parties, one which is NOT HERE anymore. Furthermore, you know why it was abandoned. There is simpyl no argument for *not* developing a missle shiled. North Korea, anyone? Or, is that Bush;s fault too? According to liberals, Bush caused the current crisis because "he wasn't nice to them". Two weeks after his state of the union and BINGO.....North Korea announces it is pursuing nukes. Stupid Bush.
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty: That's not a done deal yet. I have some issues with it anyway.
Ozone? Be more specific. BTW, you know that the ozone holturned out to be temporary, don't you?
Just for fun, perhaps you'd like to take a shot at explaining why there was no initial declaration of war, no formal declaration of ceasation of hostilities and why there are no 'prisoners of war' only 'enemy combatants'.
I realise you may not have the wherewithal to achieve this unaided so here's some links to study from people who know what they're talking about:
Comments
Originally posted by aquafire
So, out of the original 52 cards..how many left to go ?
i think 35 are now caught, leaving 17.
here's a handy dandy checklist
This is a good new. I expect that Saddam will be next.
Originally posted by Scott
Are you people really so diluted that you think the US can surround the house and "arrest" them? This is the same diluted thinking that believes that OBL is a "criminal" to be "brought to justice".
It's called "war". People fight and die.
Yes kids, and that's why we shot the Nazi commanders dead like the dogs they were rather than try them publicly for their crimes.
To show the world that senseless killing is wrong we have to kill such people without thought. It's not as if we could have "arrested" them, "tried" them and "imprisoned" them or any of that liberal hogwash. The very thought is ludicrous.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Yes kids, and that's why we shot the Nazi commanders dead like the dogs they were rather than try them publicly for their crimes.
To show the world that senseless killing is wrong we have to kill such people without thought. It's not as if we could have "arrested" them, "tried" them and "imprisoned" them or any of that liberal hogwash. The very thought is ludicrous.
Beep Beep Beep Beep Beep Beep Earth to stupider...likeafox Beep Beep Beep Beep Beep Beep come in stupider...likeafox Beep Beep Beep Beep This just in. Nazis that surrendered were taken prisoner. Beep Beep Beep Beep Beep Beep Those that fought to the death Beep Beep Beep Beep Beep Beep are Beep Beep Beep Beep Beep Beep dead Beep Beep Beep Beep Beep Beep. End transmission.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
So your crystal ball tells you that OBL would always fight to the death rather than be captured. Nice to know!
You can't be serious with this line of thought. There is only one way to deal with terrorists: Hunt them and kill them. Period. These guys are literally fanatics. They are not going to surrender for the most part.
On the sons: This kind of military operation has the goal of capturing or killing the principal(s). At the press conference, the general indicated they did attempt to get a surrender first. They also received small arms fire. I suppose they're just supposed to wait them out? Criticizing the military for (GASP!) killing the enemy is really ridiculous. These guys more than deserved whatever they got.
Scott:
Are you people really so diluted that you think the US can surround the house and "arrest" them? This is the same diluted thinking that believes that OBL is a "criminal" to be "brought to justice".
It's called "war". People fight and die. Today is was two of the worst people (ooosp I should be so judgmental, what right do I have?) on the face of the planet. Guilty of far worse than rape, murde
Perhaps I can answer: "Yes". That's exactly how deluded some here are...and in the press (judging by the conference I just saw).
Many liberals believe this should be treated like a criminal court case. We should have gone into Afghanistan with some sort of international police force and aprehended UBL. Then, we'd go home. This is delusional in the extreme, and it's one more reason liberals cannot be trusted with national security. Thsi is war. It's not pretty, but it's needed.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
So your crystal ball tells you that OBL would always fight to the death rather than be captured. Nice to know!
Did I say that? Hummmm I don't think so. People just need to realize that this is war. Not law enforcement. If the US caught sight of Saddam or OBL in the sites of an armed drone then they (we) would be well within the rules of war to shoot first and ask questions of anyone survives.
Originally posted by SDW2001
There is only one way to deal with terrorists: Hunt them and kill them. Period.
I guess you're not counting "fund them" and "train them" which have been two other popular methods of (more literally) dealing with terrorists in the recent past.
But beyond that minor historical blind-spot, I'll think you'll find that most other first-world nations at least *pretend* that they are trying to capture and try terrorists.
Originally posted by Scott
People just need to realize that this is war.
A declaration of war might help.
Originally posted by SDW2001
YThere is only one way to deal with terrorists: Hunt them and kill them ... They are not going to surrender for the most part.
I'm not particularly fanatical but I wouldn't surrender if someone was hunting in order to kill me.
Originally posted by segovius
This is a tactic of dubious morality imo - I mean they break almost all other treaties, why not go for broke ?
Uh, really? Like...
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Er, what is this argument about? So they were killed. Who is to say the US soldiers weren't attempting to capture them?
Well I'm not arguing with the facts, I'm arguing with the opinion that killing them (and OBL, and any other terrorist(tm)) rather than even attempting to capture them is Kool & The Gang.
ouch.
Originally posted by segovius
Britain and the US in particular no longer declare a war as then they would be bound by the Geneva Convention and therefore certain of their activities would be curtailed if not actually punished.
It's tough luck if you're in Guantanamo, but it cuts both ways and so may also be the reason for the 'shoot to kill' attitude as opposed to trial for the 'enemy combatants'. They can't invoke the GC against them despite all the 'war crimes' rhetoric. Otherwise they surely would - nothing like a good old show trial, plays better than mass carnage too. With some people anyway.
This is a tactic of dubious morality imo - I mean they break almost all other treaties, why not go for broke ?
Total garbage and I think you know it.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
.....Who is to say the US soldiers weren't attempting to capture them? ....
they did try to capture them from my understanding
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
I guess you're not counting "fund them" and "train them" which have been two other popular methods of (more literally) dealing with terrorists in the recent past.
But beyond that minor historical blind-spot, I'll think you'll find that most other first-world nations at least *pretend* that they are trying to capture and try terrorists.
A perfect example of straw man, disingenuous liberal argument. You know damn well what I meant.
Originally posted by segovius
Kyoto, ABM treaty, Nuclear test ban treaty (Rebound - 1997), treaty on Ozone about to be binned....
My God. Some classic liberalism here.
Kyoto was never and WILL never be ratified by the US sentate because it exempts 80% of the world's biggest polluters. It's a sham.
ABM is irrellevant in today's world. The Soviets Union does not even exist anymore. It was signed by two parties, one which is NOT HERE anymore. Furthermore, you know why it was abandoned. There is simpyl no argument for *not* developing a missle shiled. North Korea, anyone? Or, is that Bush;s fault too? According to liberals, Bush caused the current crisis because "he wasn't nice to them". Two weeks after his state of the union and BINGO.....North Korea announces it is pursuing nukes. Stupid Bush.
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty: That's not a done deal yet. I have some issues with it anyway.
Ozone? Be more specific. BTW, you know that the ozone holturned out to be temporary, don't you?
Originally posted by segovius
Then you think wrong. Again.
Just for fun, perhaps you'd like to take a shot at explaining why there was no initial declaration of war, no formal declaration of ceasation of hostilities and why there are no 'prisoners of war' only 'enemy combatants'.
I realise you may not have the wherewithal to achieve this unaided so here's some links to study from people who know what they're talking about:
Military law expert
Legal analyst
It may be true. But, can you blame us? I think it's a good idea.