I thought I did till I read this reply. I'm now honestly baffled.
So do we hunt and kill terrorists or not?
Scott thinks it's a "war" but I'm not sure hunting and killing people is allowed under the Geneva Convention either.
You mean we haven't taken ANY prisoners? Obviously, it's been our policy to hunt and capture when possible. But in this instance a firefight ensued and so they ended up dead. Too bad. You want to point out the violation of the Geneva Convention for us?
They just had an editor of one of Iraq's newspapers on CNN and according to him 80% of Iraqi's feel the photo's were fabricated by the US government. Of course, this guys numbers are probably as accurate as anything CNN would announce.
Personally, I am unconvinced by the pics. Maybe it is them, maybe it is not. Either way, the US were wrong to have engaged them in the fight. They should've done everything possible to take them alive, instead of giving them this Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid send out.
It's bad business to create martyr's for the extremist loyal to the regime.
Edit: Preview post before submitting it next time! Damn!
Then, suddenly, about 9 PM, it sounds like the early days of American troops pouring in here, i.e. real-live combat: gunfire everywhere, tracer rounds visible, even illumination (a.k.a. fireworks). The people of Baghdad weren't awaiting confirmation. It was nonstop celebratory fire. The war's critics warned constantly about the uprising of the "Arab street." Well, here it was: celebrating the end of 2/3 of the triumvirate.
It was 10 a.m. when the four Humvees pulled up outside the handsome villa on Shalalat Street and disgorged a party of U.S. soldiers. Over a bullhorn, they told the occupants to come out with their hands up.
What followed was a firefight from the ground and air that reduced the comfortable villa to a smoking hulk. And only then did the troops find out how high the stakes had been: Their targets, they discovered, were Saddam Hussein's sons Odai and Qusai, second in power only to their father.
That's a glaring descrepancy that undermines your whole argument right there.
The report clearly states Only then.... - i.e the Marines did not know till the firefight was over who were the targets...
... This has got more holes in it than a rotten Swiss cheese and is starting to smell twice as iffy.....
They were acting on a tip and a tip is just a tip. They've received more than a few tips about the whereabouts of Odai and Qusai that came up empty. No, they didn't know who they were up against until it was over. Nothing surprising about that.
**** the Geneva convention (This only applies to this case)
What matters is this:
-Were they given a chance to give up without being shot at?
-Would they serve a better purpose taken alive?
And the answers are
-Yes. The soldiers risked their lifes by giving them a chance to surrender. They could have used whatever ammo they wanted to allow the entire house to pass a strainer.
Undesided. I think they would have served a better purpose alive than dead but we can never be sure (see my last post for reference)
I've never not been happy about this. Not even the US Army is stupid enough to cold-bloodedly kill people who, moral questions aside, could provide useful info (about where all the WoMD are etc.).
Certain people have however suggested that you should kill "terrorists" rather than make any effort to capture them and further, that doing so is standard operating procedure in "wars".
I disagreed (and that makes me Saddam & family's #1 fan apparently).
Bremer, who was in Washington at the time of the raid, said: "We went to the door of the house, were refused entry and were fired upon, but with increasingly heavier weapons. And we had to respond and these people were found inside of a very heavily armored room. There was no way they were going to be taken alive."
Maybe the US should have subjected them to the comfy chair?
This has got more holes in it than a rotten Swiss cheese and is starting to smell twice as iffy.....
Swiss cheese don't have holes, and it smell good.
I have no problems with this storie. The sons of Saddam where very evil people : they have many bloods in their hands.
A minor aspect of the event : how have they been caught, should not hide the major aspect : the signification of their death for the iraki people.
The Saddam's sons refuse to surrender. It's not a surprise, given that it's better for them, to suicide rather than to face a public trial, face all the Iraki victims they made since they are in power. For them, the best end that they could expect, was a death with weapons at end.
Comments
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
I thought I did till I read this reply. I'm now honestly baffled.
So do we hunt and kill terrorists or not?
Scott thinks it's a "war" but I'm not sure hunting and killing people is allowed under the Geneva Convention either.
You mean we haven't taken ANY prisoners? Obviously, it's been our policy to hunt and capture when possible. But in this instance a firefight ensued and so they ended up dead. Too bad. You want to point out the violation of the Geneva Convention for us?
By the way, ABC News is reporting that Odai may have killed himself.
Personally, I am unconvinced by the pics. Maybe it is them, maybe it is not. Either way, the US were wrong to have engaged them in the fight. They should've done everything possible to take them alive, instead of giving them this Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid send out.
It's bad business to create martyr's for the extremist loyal to the regime.
Edit: Preview post before submitting it next time! Damn!
Originally posted by BuonRotto
forget it. people will believe what they want to believe.
No, no, click on the link and scroll down the page a bit.
edit: well from the photos on CNN, they sort of look like them
Then, suddenly, about 9 PM, it sounds like the early days of American troops pouring in here, i.e. real-live combat: gunfire everywhere, tracer rounds visible, even illumination (a.k.a. fireworks). The people of Baghdad weren't awaiting confirmation. It was nonstop celebratory fire. The war's critics warned constantly about the uprising of the "Arab street." Well, here it was: celebrating the end of 2/3 of the triumvirate.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
I thought I did till I read this reply. I'm now honestly baffled.
So do we hunt and kill terrorists or not?
Scott thinks it's a "war" but I'm not sure hunting and killing people is allowed under the Geneva Convention either.
Ummmmm? That's an aspect of war. I don't "think" this is a war. It is one.
Here's some info from an AP report.
It was 10 a.m. when the four Humvees pulled up outside the handsome villa on Shalalat Street and disgorged a party of U.S. soldiers. Over a bullhorn, they told the occupants to come out with their hands up.
What followed was a firefight from the ground and air that reduced the comfortable villa to a smoking hulk. And only then did the troops find out how high the stakes had been: Their targets, they discovered, were Saddam Hussein's sons Odai and Qusai, second in power only to their father.
So they were given a chance to give up. Happy?
Maybe they should have gotten a warrant first? Maybe the ICC could have authorized the use of kid gloves to detain them?
Originally posted by segovius
That's a glaring descrepancy that undermines your whole argument right there.
The report clearly states Only then.... - i.e the Marines did not know till the firefight was over who were the targets...
... This has got more holes in it than a rotten Swiss cheese and is starting to smell twice as iffy.....
They were acting on a tip and a tip is just a tip. They've received more than a few tips about the whereabouts of Odai and Qusai that came up empty. No, they didn't know who they were up against until it was over. Nothing surprising about that.
What matters is this:
-Were they given a chance to give up without being shot at?
-Would they serve a better purpose taken alive?
And the answers are
-Yes. The soldiers risked their lifes by giving them a chance to surrender. They could have used whatever ammo they wanted to allow the entire house to pass a strainer.
Undesided. I think they would have served a better purpose alive than dead but we can never be sure (see my last post for reference)
Originally posted by Scott
So they were given a chance to give up. Happy?
I've never not been happy about this. Not even the US Army is stupid enough to cold-bloodedly kill people who, moral questions aside, could provide useful info (about where all the WoMD are etc.).
Certain people have however suggested that you should kill "terrorists" rather than make any effort to capture them and further, that doing so is standard operating procedure in "wars".
I disagreed (and that makes me Saddam & family's #1 fan apparently).
Bremer, who was in Washington at the time of the raid, said: "We went to the door of the house, were refused entry and were fired upon, but with increasingly heavier weapons. And we had to respond and these people were found inside of a very heavily armored room. There was no way they were going to be taken alive."
Maybe the US should have subjected them to the comfy chair?
Originally posted by Scott
Ummmmm? That's an aspect of war. I don't "think" this is a war. It is one.
Here's some info from an AP report.
So they were given a chance to give up. Happy?
as i mentioned yesterday
Originally posted by segovius
T
This has got more holes in it than a rotten Swiss cheese and is starting to smell twice as iffy.....
Swiss cheese don't have holes, and it smell good.
I have no problems with this storie. The sons of Saddam where very evil people : they have many bloods in their hands.
A minor aspect of the event : how have they been caught, should not hide the major aspect : the signification of their death for the iraki people.
The Saddam's sons refuse to surrender. It's not a surprise, given that it's better for them, to suicide rather than to face a public trial, face all the Iraki victims they made since they are in power. For them, the best end that they could expect, was a death with weapons at end.