DEAD BROTHERS . . .

I didn't scrupulously avoid them, but I didn't seek them out.

0 Replies

http://www.writersbbs.com/members/quinn/roswell.jpg

Do you belief in Aliens now?

0 Replies

Quote:

Saddam's sons responded to U.S. soldiers' demand to surrender with a hail of gunfire, so there was no way they could have been captured alive, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Thursday in Washington.

I see!

I suppose that means Rumsfeld thought the brothers had an unlimited amount of food and ammunition in the house with them.

Must have been a very, very large house.

0 Replies

Difficult to avoid the pictures -- they are now being flashed before you beginning with the Today show this morning. Some Iraqis were questioning why they waited to photograph the faces until they were bloated, making it more difficult to identify. Of course, there are now accusations that the photos are doctored to look like the brothers. Who in the hell knows?

frolic, you're too much Laughing

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

Craven -- I don't like the way that works out. You could start, for example, with offing your wife. And then say that, after all, it makes sense to dispose of the body. But when one says "it makes sense" in that context one is, like it or not, aiding and abetting or at least condoning.

What are you talking about? The only way that example makes sense is if my wife was shooting at me when I "offed" her.

Tartarin wrote:

What we've got here is a series of events each of which is a "natural outcome" of the preceding one, all of which proceed from a big lie. Rather than let our indignation increase, we look for a way out. Nope. Doesn't work for me.

If you are taking this all the way back to the decision to invade I understand what you are saying, if not you lost em again.

Tartarin wrote:

(I don't have TV so I haven't seen the pictures.)

Neither do I, but I saw them anyway.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

How?

What is your reasoning here?

Fisrt of all I don't think it wrong to release photos of the dead.

Frank Apisa wrote:

If you are saying that "establishing that the brothers are dead will save lives" -- I really have to ask if you honestly do not think there were other, less uncivilized ways, of establishing that they were dead?

Hmm, it depends on your audience. There will be those who will never believe. There are those who would believe DNA.

And then there are the masses who might not believe DNA and even though they are wary of the US the imagery will have an effect.

Frank Apisa wrote:

What about the identification process? Surely there are people now in custody who could be called upon to make an identification. Frankly, the pictures could be of anyone -- they did not resemble the two brothers in the least. In fact, the pictures without other references were almost useless.

I disagree, I think it was a valid psy ops call. But the essential difference is that even if it was for no reason whatsoever I'd not care. Releasing photos of the dead is not a huge sin in my book.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
BTW, did anyone here avoid the pics?

I did not avoid them, but the only time I viewed them was when I saw them in a newspaper that lay open on the desk of a co-worker.

I found them to be disgusting and distateful -- and uncivilized.

What was the point of that question?

The point of the question was to get an answer. The US military released the images. No news organizations were forced to run the images.

The news agencies that ran the images did so because of interest. It's a sad fact of life that most humans are interested. rotten.com is one of the most popular sites on the internet.

0 Replies

Oh, and Frank, the loine about you happening to catch a glance of the photos on a desk contrasts with your claim that the photos look nothing like the brothers.

One implies a cursory glance, teh other more prolonged comparison. ;-)

0 Replies

Obvious to me that with CIA operatives involved in the attack that it was pretty good information that lead them there -- the Iraqis in the compound were defending themselves, pure and simple. Of course, they have the perojative to defend themselves when they beleive they are right and we are wrong. However, now who is wrong? Kind of a moot point.

0 Replies

Disagree, Craven (I think, not entirely clear about what you meant). I think there's been an ongoing effort (on the part of the administration, chiefly) to get us over each immoral (not to say impractical!) act and rush on to the next. Each act has led to another "necessary" follow-up. It's really important to include in a discussion about whether or not the photos should be shown publicly some sort of acknowledgement that we have been misled quite consistently by our leadership and that we are far from morally in the clear. I'd prefer to make sure that any leadership think things through very carefully, taking into account others' sense of what's right and wrong, before doing any more damage to ourselves and others around the world...

(You've lost me with that notion of the wife shooting at you, but I'll let that pass as long as she had a valid reason... Cheney and Son might help her find one!)

0 Replies

Tartarin,
The disagreement is about whether a particular act is immoral. I do not think killing or displaying the bodies of Saddam's sons to have been immoral.

I agree about certain other points but the body of trickery perpetuated by this administration does not, to me, have anything to do with this case.

Mainly because I see nothing wrong with it.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

frolic, you're too much

I know!

But just like with Aliens there are 'believers' and 'non-believers'
The believers dont need any evidence, for the non-believers all the evidence you provide can't turn them into believers. They have the tendency to raise the standard for proof as the amount of evidence increases.

0 Replies

Craven said--
I agree about certain other points but the body of trickery perpetuated by this administration does not, to me, have anything to do with this case.

Mainly because I see nothing wrong with it.

--------------------
Veddy curious!
Are you talking about The Dread Sixteen Words? Love to hear your opinion relating to your statement above.

0 Replies

No, I'm talking about releasing photos of the bodies. I see nothing wrong with that.

As to the 16 words I think they are simply representative of a larger issue. The larger issue being the desire to find a casus belli so much that you find it without having found it.

In the next few weeks we migth find out that Bush and Blair agreed to go to war a long time ago.

There is no doubt in my mind that Bush set as a GOAL the war, not the disarmament of Iraq.

The mistake wasn't the 16 words. The mistake was wanting a war so badly that the justification was the egg to the desire's chicken.

It was supposed to bring greater stability. What is geopolitical stability of not the absence of the ability of one nation to take up arms against another fecklessly?

0 Replies

Roger, in response to your question ("you wouldn't have us go back to Cold War for a solution, would you?) :

The Cold War generated necessary restraint. I would hope that, as the lone superpower in the world today, and in the interests of what's best for ALL nations, we might find a way to generate SELF-restraint. Instead, it appears the current administration views our status as carte blanche to do as we will to whomever we choose.

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that this arrogant, dismissive, hegemonistic attitude will not serve us well in the days and years ahead.

0 Replies

Back, forward, back, forward -- and each time Craven's avatar changes. I like the one with the insane eyes best!

0 Replies

It appears that killing and proving the deaths of the brothers has loosened many Iraqi tongues--

http://www.msnbc.com/news/870749.asp?vts=72520032002

U.S.: Saddam bodyguards caught after Iraqi tipsU.S. officials said Friday that the deaths of the feared sons of Saddam Hussein were already paying dividends as informers were coming forward with important leads, including one that led to the capture of at least five men thought to be members of Saddam's personal security detail.
ARMY MAJ. GEN. Ray Odierno, commander of the 4th Infantry Division, told reporters in Northern Iraq that U.S. troops, acting on a tip by someone who simply came forward to members of an Army brigade, had raided a home near Saddam's hometown, Tikrit, and captured five to 10 people thought to be part of his security detail.
Odierno said it was unclear whether the men had recently been protecting Saddam, who is believed to be in hiding somewhere in Iraq, issuing taped messages of defiance.
Asked whether he believed U.S. forces were closing in on Saddam, whom U.S.-led forces deposed in a military campaign that began in March, Odierno said U.S. troops had already spoken with one of his wives. He did not identify her, but he said, "We continue to tighten the noose."

Odierno, who commands U.S. forces in a large zone that starts just north of Baghdad and stretches to the oil fields north of Kirkuk and to the Iranian border, reported an increase in tips from informers since the United States released pictures Thursday of the corpses of Odai and Qusai Hussein, the former president's two eldest sons.
One of them, which was received later in the day Thursday, led to the discovery of a large cache of firearms and explosives buried underground near a house southeast of Samarra.
U.S. troops dug up a container that contained 45,000 sticks of dynamite and 11 improvised bombs, more than three dozen machine guns and sub-machine guns and bomb detonation cord, as well as 34 rocket-propelled grenade launchers and 150 rounds of ammunition for them, he said.

RAISING IRAQIS' COMFORT LEVEL
U.S. officials have said the deaths of the brothers, both of whom were at the top of the government and were widely feared for their brutality, would reassure Iraqis that it was safe to support the U.S.-led coalition. Reacting to skepticism voiced by some Iraqis that the photographs released Thursday were authentic, the U.S. military allowed journalists to photograph and videotape the corpses Friday.
--------------------------
Now, if they can just point out the WMDs...

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

As to the 16 words I think they are simply representative of a larger issue. The larger issue being the desire to find a casus belli so much that you find it without having found it.

In the next few weeks we migth find out that Bush and Blair agreed to go to war a long time ago.

There is no doubt in my mind that Bush set as a GOAL the war, not the disarmament of Iraq.

The mistake wasn't the 16 words. The mistake was wanting a war so badly that the justification was the egg to the desire's chicken.

Craven<

I agree so much with the above quote from you that I thought it deserved a replay. Bravo!

0 Replies

Deep bow...

0 Replies

I started reading this thread, and then spotted Sofia's new avatar...sorry, what was the question again?

0 Replies

Well, I like this [... I'm glad, I had breakfast already: sofiawith an empty belly ...] from the Guardian.

Quote:

... John 20:25: "Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe."

[...]

The vigorous printing in this country of the pictures - a detail on the Times front page, full-frontal in the Guardian and Daily Telegraph - raises a different question. The justification for releasing the death shots is essentially cultural: fired by the idea that both scepticism about western claims and tolerance of posthumous photography are greater in the east. To adopt a patronising phrase traditionally used by British ambassadors abroad when the local ruler made an anti-UK speech or jailed the opposition. The snaps were "purely for local consumption".

If so, then why did the images need such widespread dissemination in the west? There are three plausible answers: 1) That British and American voters are secretly as sceptical towards allied press releases as Iraqis are. 2) That we are enjoying - or are assumed to enjoy - gloating over the scalps of those we conquered. 3) That - in order to make a proper judgment of the local response to the images - we need to see precisely what they saw.

The vigorous printing in this country of the pictures - a detail on the Times front page, full-frontal in the Guardian and Daily Telegraph - raises a different question. The justification for releasing the death shots is essentially cultural: fired by the idea that both scepticism about western claims and tolerance of posthumous photography are greater in the east. To adopt a patronising phrase traditionally used by British ambassadors abroad when the local ruler made an anti-UK speech or jailed the opposition. The snaps were "purely for local consumption".

If so, then why did the images need such widespread dissemination in the west? There are three plausible answers: 1) That British and American voters are secretly as sceptical towards allied press releases as Iraqis are. 2) That we are enjoying - or are assumed to enjoy - gloating over the scalps of those we conquered. 3) That - in order to make a proper judgment of the local response to the images - we need to see precisely what they saw

With a churning stomach and a troubled conscience, I would claim the third justification and let's hope the second doesn't apply. But I fear there may be something in the first and that - for this reason - spin-doctors in Washington and London may welcome the media ghoul-show.

[...]

... John 20:29: "Blessed are they that have not seen and yet believe." ...

complete comment: Seeing is believing

0 Replies

DEAD BROTHERS . . .

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know