I can't help but think what people would think if another country published similar pictures of the US president's children. I'm not comparing Bush's kids to Hussein's kids, but you see my point?I also find it amusing that The Age today posted a story of how autopsy photos of Jaidyn Leskie ended up on the net and how offended his monther is. This story is right underneigth the story of the Hussein's children.http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/25/1059084189726.html
How do people these days feel, in retrospect, about Mussolini and his mistress having been butchered and strung up from lampposts? Is it a sense of disgust, a feeling that it was unfortunate, or more like "they were bastards, they deserved it"?
Well, could the US military govt blame people if they were sceptical?
Listen, I understand your disgust at the publication of the photos of Uday and Qusay Hussein but what you have to understand is that it was absolutely necessary for the US government to do so. There are thousands of people in Iraq and all over the middle east who refused to believe that 9/11 was perpetrated by Al Qaida not because they hate America, but because they don't have access to the same amount of information regarding the events as we do in the United States, Europe and Australia. The same thing goes for the killing of Hussein's progeny; people refuse to believe it because they havent seen it themselves and are very skeptical of what the US government tells them. Specifically in Iraq where there is a large fear of the return of Hussein and his sons, Iraqis need to be shown evidence before they will believe it.
Wow, nice bushspeak there, with 911 and Hussein sentences back to back. "Uday and Qusay Hussein" and "believe that 9/11 was perpetrated by Al Qaida" = no link, the winner is you. Pax.
I (sort of) agree with Nostradamus: publishing the photos (and distributing dental records, etc.) was necessary, because the US would not have been believed otherwise.But in the context of objecting to Iraq releasing (to Al Jazeera, I believe) pictures of dead US servicement, well... don't get me wrong, I think it was yet another Bad Thing on the list of Bad Things Iraq's (former) govt did, but to bitch about Iraq doing it to comparatively anonymous soldiers (well, they didn't say This Is John Smith's Mutilated Corpse, did they?), then to not only release photos, but show close-ups of people who've been identified, seems a bit rich.
It was interesting that Salam Pax, after bemoaning that they weren't taken alive, reckoned that the US needed have to release photos to convince the Iraqi people. Which they did.
i was perturbed when cbs nonchalantly displayed the images of the corpses without any precursor warning of any sort. no "warning: grisly images ahead. images may be unsuitable for children", nothing.just: blah blah, cut to corpses, pan left, show legs, pan right, zoom in on face.great. thanks. you guys wouldn't show me any of the Real War(tm) that was happening when the war was "still going on", but you'll show me this?that's exactly what i needed to motivate me to continue my workout.
Pah. I'll take bets on whether they are doubles. Uncle Saddam has plenty of doubles so why wouldn't his sons? Besides which you can't believe anything the US says or trust anything they put out, such as these pictures.
It's been argued that the availability of doubles in Iraq must have been overstated, or else some of Saddam's many doubles would have turned up by now.
they deserved it after what they done
Thank you for your insightful contribution.
is it fair just to shoot humans or should we have at least allowed the ppl of iraq decide there fate we let timothy mcvie and other live for the crimes they commited and did not kill them when we found them the dubyaa bush should have not allowed american troops kill two men let alone kill many others just because of a name
Please keep comments on topic and to the point. Inappropriate comments may be deleted.
Note that markup is stripped from comments; URLs will be automatically converted into links.