Uday and Qusay likely captured or killed!
 

Breaking news from MSNBC

That "likely" just kills the importance of the story for me.

FOX News: Report: Saddam's Sons Captured or Killed
'Likely' That Udai, Qusai in Mosul Shootout
Fox News learns heirs to dictatorship probably in Mosul house targeted by U.S. forces

CNN: BREAKING NEWS U.S. troops investigating whether Saddam Hussein's sons Uday and Qusay were killed during firefight in Mosul, Iraq, Pentagon officials tell CNN. Details to come.

MSNBC: Saddam sons taken?
NBC News: ‘Likely’ captured or killed
Saddam Hussein’s sons Udai and Qusai Hussein were “likely” captured or killed in a U.S. raid in northern Iraq Tuesday. More details to come...

They were also reasonably optimistic that they had killed Saddam in one of the two bombing attempts directly targeting him. I'm hoping it's true of course, but will wait for definite confirmation.

The same thing has happened about a dozen times in this conflict already, be it for capturing people or finding chemical weapons. We'll see.

On CNN they keep talking about Mosul as a part of the supposed Saddam stronghold. I thought Mosul was much farther north and basically in Kurdish control. Does anyone know any more about this?

Not that the departure of Saddam's sons from this mortal coil wouldn't be a good thing...

...but is anyone else creeped out by such a vocally Christian member of this board putting a grinning smiley face next to a possible death announcement? Sorry, SkyDog, but as good of news as this would be for political reasons, I guess I'd expect a little less joy from you.

NM: The needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few.

the "breaking news from MSNBC" part did it for me.

:)

And what, exactly, does that have to do with putting a smiley face next to a possible death announcement?

Think of SkyDog being a proxy for many of the Iraqi Olympians, since they probably don't know about FOFC.

But he's not. I'm also assuming that most of those Iraqi Olympians weren't Christians, and while I'm not comfortable speaking about Islam's views on killing, I know that Christianity has tended to take a fairly somber view.

Hooray! We just executed ten unwitting hobos, and have shipped their body parts for immediate transplant into needy donors.

Great, another ethical debate.

I believe that this is a just war, and that these men were targets. That's why the smiley. Let's not try to rehash all the reasons, but can you at least accept that if it is a just war, then such a response is appropriate?

Anrhsfgtzfdghj(or however the hell its spelled): Christianity is certainly not about the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few. In fact I would argue that that the many outweighing the few is just another form of moral relativism.

btw- Its also a pretty good argument for taxing the rich and redistributing wealth!

Were the hobos dressed slutty?

"Just" a war? These are real people getting hurt and killed, SkyDog.

I'd say a smiley face isn't appropriate. If I heard that Saddam had been killed, I'd probably feel fairly positive about it, but I've also got enough respect for the enemy to not celebrate unduly. After all, his side is still taking some of our guys every day.

We'll have to agree to disagree on whether this was a just war or not. But I don't like the idea of Christians celebrating killing...it makes me suspicious of how firmly they walk the talk, and as committed as I believe you are to your cause, your smiley struck me as surprising and inappropriate. Just one man's opinon, though.

Actually, I do find it creepy to see anyone's death placed next to a smiley.

You juxtaposed words and COMPLETELY changed the meaning there. I trust it was a mistake. I said, "a just war" not "just a war." That makes a HUGE difference in meaning.

Ack...yeah, a mistake. My bad. :)

Shit, if killing Saddam's sons makes the fugitives stop killing Americans I'm all about the smileys.

But I'm with cuervo on this one, until I know for sure, I'm skeptical.

no prob...

You did it right, just an "A" plus random letters.

War isn't about Christianity, it's what humans do. Christ, when He died and resurrected from the Cross, was certainly about the needs of the many (all humankind) outweighing the need of one that He was willing to sacrifice himself for all of us. It's something that we, as humans, cannot really comprehend so we just resolve it by knowing good vs evil and how it awkwardky plays out throughout history (esp. in the case of warfare).

Taxing the rich and redistributing wealth is about envy and covetness (think one of the 10 commandments). Volunteering to give up your wealth is what Christ talked about.

I'm sorry, A, but I disagree with that assessment of both war, its relationship to religion, and your understanding of Christianity.

We can comprehend it. Christ was meant to be the last sacrifice--the last one killed for the good of the many. Yet we continue to enact sacrificial rituals (e.g. going after Saddam Hussein because he represents terrorism). Does it "really" matter if we capture or kill Saddam? Only to a degree...the symbolic value is much more powerful than the "actual" value.

Ahselihsdlk:(I'm really getting the hang of your name!) I was only using Christianity because of NoMyths' post. Personally I don't really agree that the good of the many is appropriate in Christianity all of the time. Certainly one is supposed to sacrifice self for God and fellow man, but I don't thik that applies to killing if it makes others happy.

And I just tossed in the tax thing to torment you, I'm not trying to say taxation is Christian or vice versa. My point was a doctrine of the many over the few seems to justify income redistribution at least to some level.

There was a war?

I agree, the symbolic value is much more powerful than the "actual" value. The actual value will come from the Iraqi government being able to govern on their own.

I know, it's a fine and confusing line. From Isaiah, ""For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD . When humankind is veiled by sin, wars are an unfortunate result. I cannot take up arms as willingly as other believers but it seems we do what we can to affect our sphere of influence, how imperfect that might be.

If our ways aren't His ways, and our ways have traditionally been warfare, then why don't we try His ways for a change? ;)

Or to add to Isaiah: when Jesus said love your enemies, I don't think he meant kill them.

If it was Uday and Qusay killed.. that leaves 2 others dead along with them. . .

Probably just a pair of South African pilots....

I am sure we killed them when they were reading the Koran to blind children.

Dola,

My point is they are evil people and death is what they deserve.

NM: In both cases, He was commanding His believers. If the majority of individuals and certainly all nations do not follow Christ and His ways, why are we surprised at the consequences?

I don't know why I thought of this anecdote but it may fit. When the Constitutional Congress wanted limited the new nation's armed forces to 20,000, Genl. Washington replied, "I would readily accept that limit if you can guarantee me that our enemies would also have the same limit."

That's good news. But the key word is "likely." So I'll believe it when they have actual proof

It's not a matter of being "surprised at the consequences" -- that's merely a matter of most people not behaving in 'good' ways (e.g. Christians who aren't actually following the teachings of Christ). It's a matter of being surprised by the reaction of a vocal Christian member of the community celebrating a possible killing in what I felt was a tasteless way.

I'm not sure why you thought of that anecdote either. :)

When I prayed to God this morning he told me he wanted them dead!

He's vengeful and jealous like that. Those bastards have false idols out the yin-yang!

Sounds a lot like what happened to Pablo Escobar.

A friend of mine once had false idols coming out of his yin-yang. Very scary...

Christianity isn't really the issue here. You're worried more about SkyDog not practicing the version of Christianity you endorse instead of the one he endorses. Christianity is not monolithic, and pretending that it is just so you can point fingers is dishonest.

Back to the news at hand...

Mosul is very far north in Iraq, which, according to CNN, is of great interest to the intelligence analysts. Were they about to cross the border?

We should know definitively if we actually got them this time. They have or will have the bodies and can do DNA testing if nothing else.

Come again?

I don't endorse any particular brand of religion. I do believe in pointing out dissonance between a religion and the way it is practiced. I've already explained why I felt it was in poor taste for a purported Christian to celebrate the potential death of an enemy in the manner that SkyDog did. There's absolutely nothing dishonest about that.

Being a non-religious fella, I can tell you that news of Saddam's or his sons' deaths would bring a smile to my face. They are some of the most evil, despicable humans in history.

You're perceiving a dissonance based on your particular definition of the tenets of Christianity. Ask 5 Christians what Christianity means and you'll get 10 different responses. You know this. You're allowed to view SkyDog's smilies as poor taste, but you can't say that he's somehow failing in his religious duty just because your taste was offended (I'm using offended here very mildly). The dissonance you detect is his action vis-a-vis your perception of Christianity...not his action and "true" Christianity (whatever the fuck that may be).

Yes? No?

(Oh, and I should have put a smiley in that post, so here it is now - :P )

I never said he was failing in his religious duty. I said that his use of a smiley face next to a possible death announcement was in poor taste considering his stated beliefs. Over and over. I'm not concerned with our differing perceptions of Christianity, but I'm familiar enough with the core tenets to know that Jesus probably wouldn't have done a touchdown dance if Pontius Pilate had been assassinated.

Well apparently "your brand" doesn't leave room for a just war. I said very clearly that I believe it is a just war, and therefore celebrate achieving an objective. If I didn't believe it was a just war, then I'd be saddened.

NM: You are getting close to another theological argument and that is what does death mean? For those believers in Christ, death is something we can mourn for the passing but joyful in knowing that there is eternal life. The alternate is something to be truly saddened by, if we were to know.

"The greatest pain in Hell is the loss of Heaven."

Really? I guess you don't buy N.T. Wright's assessment that the famous "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's; render unto God that which is God's" shouldn't be paraphrased as "Pay your taxes and be a good citizen as long as it doesn't conflict with your religious principles", but as "Give Caesar exactly what he deserves - that is, a sharp stick in the eye - because everything really belongs to God and Caesar is trying to usurp it unjustly".

Jesus was more politically savvy and revolutionary than you give him credit for, I think. There are significant differences between the Disciples of Jesus (for lack of a better term) and Pauline Christianity.

What does this have to do with your statement above, you ask? Only a reminder that my point is that the only Christianity most people understand (myself included) is their own.

In necessariis unitas, in non-necessariis libertas, in utrisque caritas.

Drake -

I just talked to God again and he told me he can see your nipples through that shirt...

Just FYI.

I love a cookie based faith