Uday and Qusay, two fun-loving guys!

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0305/26/lol.02.html

PHILLIPS: Michael, what appalled you the most about this man? I am talking about Uday now.

WEISSKOPF: The very personal style of his cruelty and murder and how he acted with absolutely no restraint. His brother was much more of an icy professional killer. Uday, however, swept brides out of wedding parties for his own delight. He lined up 15 or 20 women at a time at night, and ran, sort of beauty contests to decide whom he would sleep with. He was so cruel he would surf the Internet for torture techniques from past eras and other nations, discovering, for instance, the torment of keeping people in closed coffins, which he did. Or beating people on the sides until their kidneys dysfunctioned.

who or what precisely? His close, familial ties with the bush regime go back 20 years and are well documented.

I'm skeptical as to his credibility.

WE don't believe saddams kids are dead and we don't believe they were monsters. Bush has been caught in so many lies, only a fool believes anything the GOP/media says now.

Or other hippy bullcrap.

Who is this "WE" that you are referring to? How about you speak for yourself, let others speak for themselves and stop pretending as if you know what everyone else thinks.

Oh, and as to your belief that they weren't monsters, well it takes a certain amount of willful ignorance to take that position. Their atrocities are so well documented by so many independent and unrelated sources (having nothing to do with and often predating the Bush administration) as to have become historical fact.

Here is some light reading for you:

http://www.mafhoum.com/press5/147P57.htm

. . .

He saw something he liked, recalls his former aide Adib Shabaan, who helped arrange the party. Uday tightened the focus on a pretty 14-year-old girl in a bright yellow dress sitting with her father, a former provincial governor, her mother and her younger brother and sister. Uday's bodyguards picked up the signal and walked through the darkened room, flicking cigarette lighters as they approached the girl's table. Uday, then 33, flipped on his too, confirming they had identified the right one. When the girl left the table for the powder room, Uday's bodyguards approached her with a choice, says Shabaan, who was Uday's business manager. She could ascend the platform now and congratulate Uday on his recovery, or she could call him on his private phone that night. Flustered, she apologized and said her parents would allow neither. One of the guards replied, "This is the chance of your life" and promised she would receive diamonds and a car. "All you have to do is go up there for 10 minutes," he urged. When she demurred again, the bodyguards pursued Uday's backup plan. They maneuvered the girl in the direction of the parking lot, picked her up and carried her to the backseat of Uday's car, covering her mouth to muffle her screams.

After three days the girl was returned to her home, with a new dress, a new watch and a large sum of cash. Her parents had her tested for rape; the result was positive. According to Shabaan's account, Uday heard she had been tested and sent aides to the clinic, where they warned doctors not to report a rape. Furious, the father demanded to see Saddam himself. Rebuffed, he kept complaining publicly about what Uday had done. After three months, the President's son had had enough. He sent two guards to the man to insist that he drop the matter. Uday had another demand: that the ex-governor bring his daughter and her 12-year-old sister to his next party. "Your daughters will be my girlfriends, or I'll wipe you off the face of the earth." The man complied, surrendering both girls.

. . .

To get a closer look at the brothers Hussein, TIME interviewed dozens of sources with knowledge of the two men—butlers, maids, business associates, bodyguards, secretaries, colleagues and friends, most of whom insisted on anonymity for fear the Husseins are somehow still capable of taking revenge. We visited the sons' homes and sifted through raw material, including scores of documents, photographs, videotapes and recordings of phone taps.

. . .

Qusay had been working for his father in small jobs in internal security when his big break came. Iraq's Shi'ite Muslims, who make up a majority in the country but have long been repressed by the minority Sunnis, revolted against the regime in dozens of cities when Gulf War I ended. Saddam gave Qusay broad authority to oversee the crushing of the uprising. He did not entirely delegate the task. An eyewitness recalls watching Qusay, dressed in gray trousers and a blue jacket, arrive in Suera, where armed guards herded 300 Shi'ite detainees onto a field. The President's son, dangling a pistol in his right hand, walked up to the men and shot four of them in the head, according to a military officer at the scene. As he pulled the trigger, Qusay screamed out, "Bad people! Dirty criminals!" Qusay then ordered the execution of the remaining prisoners, got into his car and drove back to Baghdad. It was just one of many Shi'ite exterminations that Qusay ordered or personally performed in 1991, the ex-officer told TIME. The same source, one of Qusay's security commanders, said Qusay, for example, directed the execution of 15 families in Saddam City, a Shi'ite enclave in Baghdad.

. . .

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

"Their atrocities are so well documented by so many independent and unrelated sources (having nothing to do with and often predating the Bush administration) as to have become historical fact".

The above sentence is more than slightly overstates the multitude,
independence and veracity of the sources. If you look more closely
at the so-called "evidence" of Ouday's evilness (there is virtually
nothing to attribute the same demonic qualities to Qusay, except
for his leadership role in Iraq), all you see is a couple of
anecdotes, such as his torturing the Iraqi athletes or shooting his
father's bodyguard, which are all attributed to some unidentified
sources within Iraq. The anecdotes migrate from account to account,
from article to article, and from book to book. The sources of the
anecdotes are, at best, a few, and their "independence" is highly
doubtful. Most likely, they originate from the Iraqi opposition,
which is to say from CIA, and should be given as much credence as the
information on Iraq's WMD coming from the same origin. Despite being
undoubtedly spoiled children of privielege (as any number of Midle
Eastern princes), the Hussein brothers remained in Iraq, fought the
agressor as real man, and ultimately gave their lives to the cause
of their country independence. It is more than can be said about
"moral qualities" of any Western leader.

Are you telling me that the soccer players lied for the US benefit? because they reported that they had been tortured as well.

Just because these guys are bad does not mean Bush is right about everything. Geez you guys need to learn that you don't need to disagree with everything to be right. You're just making asses of us all by attempting to deny the obvious.

Thanks BC.

Speak for your not-so-well-informed self, bunnyhop. My dad lived in Iran for the first 28 years of his life, and his family remains there. Everyone who knows anything knows about those two.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/24/earlyshow/living/main545796.shtml

What?

They needed killin'?

But it should have been the Iraqi population that did the killin', not a US military strike.

http://espn.go.com/oly/s/2002/1220/1480103.html



The point is, it is unfortunate that they were assassinated, but the hippie bullshit about this is getting ridiculous.

Why don't you take this shit over to FR?

They'd love it....

that was great!

How about doing some actual research instead of spouting off a knee-jerk response just because some independently documented information doesn't jibe with what you want to believe.

Tell you what, why don't you do go through some Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch reports and see what they say about the human rights violation conducted by Saddam and his government including his sons. This shit wasn't exactly a secret or made up recently by the Bush administration.

Doesn't excuse us invading Iraq but if you think these charges are recent then you really need to go out more.

...supporting the assasination/execution of anyone without a fucking trial.

What these guys may or may not have done is beside the point.

Who do you support killing next?

Hey, here's an idea....let's go back to the days of the central American death squads!

how exactly were we supposed to take them into custody? Offer them enough people to shoot so that they ran out of ammo, and then wrestle them to the ground?

How many Americans should they have been allowed to kill in order to arrest them alive?

They shot and wounded four guys trying to arrest them. They had a choice....be arrested and face trial, or don't be arrested and die fighting. They made their choice.

and I'd love to see where in my post it indicates I did.

If I misunderstood your initial post I apologize but I was responding to what seemed to be a dismissal of any reports that come out from the Bush administration detailing the human rights offenses committed by Saddam and his sons just because the arguments are coming from Bush.

Actually, I would have preferred that they been taken alive and turned over to the Iraqi population to be tried and sentenced. But, then again, my idea of sentencing while just and totally in line with karma probably would have offended your sensibilities.

Since that's not possible anymore however, I'm sure not going to weep over these two or lose too much sleep over their ultimate fate which was well deserved and a long time coming.

this general notion that the on-scene commander could have contacted Mr. Scott and had Uday and Qusay transported to the brig. It's very difficult, if not impossible, to take someone alive who doesn't want to be taken alive, especially if they're holed up in a fortified position with automatic weapons. It would have been nice to take them alive, but I don't think it would have been worth the life of any US personnel to do it.

the stories are HOW OLD?

I stand by my position that these stories are (a) made up, or (b) ancient, at least 11 year old history.

I defy anyone in here to find a report about a mass grave, or any bodies that are newer than 1992.

You all are under the impression that hussein & co kept up their alleged dirty deeds, and oddly, in all stories, the word 'alleged' is used a LOT.

You need to re-read what you think you're reading with a more open mind, instead of reading things into what you're conditioned to believing.

didn't read the article?

"In 1997, FIFA, the governing body for international soccer, sent soccer officials from Qatar and Malaysia to Baghdad to investigate a report that members of the national team were imprisoned and had their feet caned after losing a World Cup qualifying game to Kazakhstan. FIFA exonerated Iraq, saying they found no evidence of torture after interviewing and physically examining 12 players."

I'm sure the soccer officials are lying though. What motive would they have for telling the truth?

I've seen enough interviews with soccer players since the collapse of the regime and have seen their scars to believe Uday scared the hell out of everyone in '97 during the FIFA investigation.

I mean, who you say, "Oh, yes, Uday tortures us constantly. Now go back to Italy and leave me here to fend for myself."

Why is this rape and pillage information being used? To justify the assassination contra justice. You kill the person, then justify your reasons after the fact. This is what ALL muderers do. Our press is apologizing for this. Why? Because there is a nagging question:

If these two insane rapist/murderer/drug abusing hooligans knew about WMD, WHY IN THE HELL DID WE SPEND SIX HOURS PUTTING BULLETS IN THEM?

Now, people can simply say, "The US killed evil people. Bush Inc. took justice in his own hands. No problem there."

Fuck that.

The United States has dangerously veered towards a worship of death. Bush certainly uses death as a political tool. Some people say fear, I say death. We can revel in the deaths of evil men who deserved U.S. retribution.

Using sex crimes to offend and titillate viewers into accepting murder is sick and disgusting. No Hippy BS about that. It's pathological. Bush's death worship is rubbing off on all our media outlets.

No matter what awful things may or may not be true about anyone, justice is meted out by bodies of law, bodies of SOVEREIGN law, which attempt to emulate divine principle. Ex Post Facto rationale for murder is not divine.

Eric

I'm sure they were in that house, folks, and that they are no longer among the living.

Take a good look at photos of these two freaks. They look like they were both as stupid as they were cruel.

Good riddance. But it still does not mean Jack in terms of the bigger picture.

gruesome men.

but i'll tell you straight,i didn't want them dead.
that's not justice, at least not to me.
i would have prefered they were caught alive and sent in front of a criminal court, and made to spend the rest of their miserable lives in jail. look at these two;jail would have been the end of them.

i have serious doubts over the WH's version of what occured yesterday,
but if i question details and express doubt that, in no way means i have sympathy for these two and i am tired of people implying otherwise. period.

and letting the Iraqis do whatever they wanted to do to them as ruled over by a court.

A trial before a court where the death penalty would not have been an option would have been a joke given the pain and suffering these two have caused.

If the Iraqi people had opted not to have them executed, then fine.

But if the Iraqi's had dictated that the sons "needed killing" then fine as well.

I would think that capturing them, trying them, then possibly executing them may have made a louder statement.

I personally think that those charred bodies were not them. The math doesnt add up in this one my friends.

we had a chance to help them become productive members of society. Now that chance has been lost forever.

If that was a joke, it was hysterical. If not, I think I hate you.

.:hi:

Amnesty International is maybe the best source on violations and their report on the political climate in Iraq is very damning on Saddam and sons.....

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE140101999

BTW, I agree a trial would have been ideal, realistic?? maybe, maybe not, but certainly ideal to put them in the Hague and confront them with witnesses......

themselves with specific people and governments in order to secure funding.

The sources for their information are as narrow as everyone elses, and reports are riddled with 'allegedly' as well.

I'm still waiting for a SINGLE 'mass grave' NOT pre-dating 1992 and NOT associated with shi'ite uprisings to be unearthed.

They have no intelligence assets or investigating capabilities
of their own. Their reports have to rely either on information
published by the media or on interviews with former residents
of the country in question. Neither of the two sources is very
reliable. Many of the people they interview are in the process
of obtaining a legal refugee status in one of the Western countries.
As such, they are directly interested in embelishing the horror of
political prosecution they experienced to advance their claim.
In fact, most of those "prosecution" stories are 100% bogus, made up
for gullible foreigners. Another problem with AI reports is that they
are less than comprehensive. It's very often just one or two guys/
girls with a laptop and some information from the sources I mentioned.
That makes the product vulnerable to political manipulation. There is
little doubt that AI is heavily infiltrated by underground CIA agents.
So are most other NGOs pretending to present a high authority on
freedom, democracy and human rights. Even when an agency with
virtually unlimited resources, such as CIA, can't get their story
straight, how trustworthy and reliable can a puny NGO be? Not very.

Do you have ANY proof that the world's best known and most influential human rights organization is full of "underground cia agents" or is the proof simply that you don't like what they say?

I don't know if they will be very forthcoming though. Only someone
very naive could assume that CIA wouldn't try to infiltrate AI and
a number of other NGOs. And given the easigoing nature and total
lack of internal security in those organizations, it wouldn't
be an overestimation to say that such infiltration attempts will be
100% successful. In fact, CIA is known to establish NGOs and use
them as a front for covert operations. Sources of financing for
many NGOs remain quite mysterious. If the CIA is not above having
a wife of a prominent diplomat as its undercover agent, as we have
recently found out, why would they keep AI off limits?

...but wait...Bush* doesn't recognize any law above his own.

- The Bushies are committing WAR CRIMES in Iraq and trying to make it look like these political assassinations are within the context of fighting a war. But these guys didn't attack any US soldier or interest...they were attacked in hiding. Bush* didn't WANT them to ever be able to testify in a court of law about the Bush/Saddam/bin Laden connection.

In other words, you have no proof that AI is controlled or influenced by the CIA, just that "they've tried things like this before."