portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

imperialism & war

Justice for Women: Uday is dead!

A happy day for women everywhere, especially those in Iraq who were raped against their will by the vile twins.
Saddam's sons killed in raid in northern Iraq


By SARMAD JALAL / Associated Press

MOSUL, Iraq Saddam Hussein's sons Odai and Qusai died in a blaze of gunfire and rockets Tuesday, the U.S. military said, claiming their deaths will blunt Iraqi resistance to the American occupation.

This is an undated file photo of Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein with his sons, Odai (left) and Qusai.

It was the most successful American operation since the war and comes as a much-needed tonic for U.S. troops, who recently have suffered a dozen attacks a day.

Acting on a tip from an Iraqi informant, U.S. forces mounted a six-hour operation in which they surrounded and then stormed a palatial villa in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez told reporters in Baghdad.

Four coalition soldiers were wounded and two other Iraqis were killed in the raid, but Saddam was not among them. The house belonged to a Saddam cousin, a tribal leader in the region.

"We are certain that Odai and Qusai were killed today," Sanchez said. "The bodies were in such a condition where you could identify them."

The daily attacks on U.S. occupation troops are thought to be the work of former military officers and Baath Party leaders loyal to Saddam and his family especially the sons, who played primary roles in the military and feared security services.

"Outstanding," said 1st Lt. Greg Wilson, 33, with the Florida Army National Guard in the northeast section of Baghdad. He clapped his hands and said: "One step closer to getting home."

The White House applauded the action.

"Over the period of many years, these two individuals were responsible for countless atrocities committed against the Iraqi people and they can no longer cast a shadow of hate on Iraq," it said in a statement.

Secretary of State Colin Powell echoed those remarks.

"I was pleased to learn that these two brutal members of Saddam's regime are no longer a threat," Powell said in a statement. "The Iraqi people are safer today. We will pursue the other members of his murderous regime wherever they might be hiding."

"This will contribute significantly to reducing attacks on coalition soldiers," said Ahmad Chalabi, a delegate from Iraq's Governing Council, speaking at the United Nations.

Sanchez said he thought the security situation now would improve.

"I believe very firmly this will have an effect. This will prove to the Iraqi people that these two members of the Iraqi regime will never come to power again," the general said.

After the firefight in Mosul, about 1,000 people gathered outside the smoldering villa, some expressing delight, others cursing the Americans.

Hours later, gunfire erupted throughout Baghdad, making travel in the capital very dangerous. The shooting was believed to be celebratory as news spread of the sons' deaths.

Both Odai (pronounced oh-DEYE) and Qusai (pronounced koh-SEYE) ranked second only to their father in the deposed regime. They were Nos. 2 and 3 on the U.S. list of 55 top former Iraqi officials wanted by Washington. The United States had offered a $25 million reward for information leading to Saddam's capture and $15 million each for his sons.

In Washington, L. Paul Bremer, Iraq's top civilian administrator, said the deaths of Saddam's sons "certainly is good news for the Iraqi people."

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld personally kept President Bush informed through the day.

The gunfight in Mosul broke out after soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division surrounded the stone, columned villa.

When soldiers approached the building, gunmen inside opened fire with small arms. The "suspects barricaded themselves in the house" and "resisted fiercely," Sanchez said.

"They died in a fierce gunbattle," he added.

Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division were working on a tip from an Iraqi informant Monday night that the sons were in the house, he said.

Asked if the United States would pay the $15 million rewards, Sanchez said: "I would expect that it probably will happen."

According to witnesses, a small force of American soldiers went to the house about 9 a.m. and asked permission to search it. The occupants refused, and the patrol withdrew until about 10 a.m., when 100 more soldiers arrived in 25 vehicles.

The Americans opened fire and took fierce return fire from inside the home, the witnesses said. Kiowa helicopters then shot rockets into the villa.

The building, in the al-Falah neighborhood, was left charred and smoldering, its high facade riddled with gaping holes from bullets and heavy weaponry.

The interior of the house was destroyed and two adjacent homes were badly damaged.

Some Mosul civilians appeared to have been caught in the crossfire. It was not known how many were injured, but several were taken to a hospital.

Once the fighting died down, Iraqi police came to help the Americans search the building.

The soldiers removed four bodies and did not let photographers take pictures. The other two bodies were tentatively identified as that of a bodyguard and a teenager, U.S. officials said. The teen may have been a son of Qusai, they said.

Experts conducted DNA tests after the bodies were flown from Mosul to another location, officials said. But Sanchez would not answer whether the tests were positive, saying "we've used multiple, multiple sources to identify the individuals."

In the confusion of celebratory gunfire across Baghdad, a unit of the Florida Army National Guard, believing that it was coming under fire, shot a man twice in the chest and a girl who looked to be between 6 and 8 once in the head.

The man was firing a gun about 30 yards away, as the unit attached to the 3rd Batallion, 53rd Infantry Brigade shot back. As the unit retreated under orders, a medic treated the girl, who was taken to a hospital in a passing car.

Qusai was probably intended as Saddam's successor, according to U.S. intelligence officials. He ran much of Iraq's security apparatus, controlling several militias, internal security services and the military forces of the once-vaunted Republican Guard.

He was described as quiet and levelheaded, particularly compared to Odai, his elder brother, who had a reputation for brutality and flamboyance. Odai controlled Saddam's Fedayeen, the paramilitary force that fought U.S. troops during the war; many of its survivors are thought to be part of the guerrilla campaign in Iraq.

Odai also controlled information and propaganda, and was chairman of the country's Olympic committee.

Saddam has a third, younger son, according to some reports, and three daughters. All kept a low profile in his regime.

Mosul, a city 240 miles northwest of Baghdad that housed Iraqi army bases, is outside the so-called "Sunni Triangle" in central Iraq. It is home to much of the remaining support for Saddam, a Sunni Muslim who used his Baathist Party to oppress the country's Shiite majority.

The triangle is also a center of anti-American resistance: In the latest attack, Tuesday, a U.S. soldier was killed and another wounded in an ambush along a dangerous road north of Baghdad. His death brought to 153 the number of U.S. troops killed in action since the March 20 start of war, six more than during the 1991 Gulf War.

The U.S. Central Command said the attackers used rocket-propelled grenades and small arms in the assault staged along the road between Balad, 50 miles north of Baghdad, and Ramadi, 60 miles west of the capital.

Twice during the war, information on Saddam's whereabouts was deemed solid enough that an airstrike was sent to kill him. But despite optimistic statements in the hours after each raid, U.S. officials now believe he is alive.

Asked at Tuesday's news conference if he had any idea where is, Sanchez replied: "We remain focused on finding, fixing, killing or capturing all members of the high-value target list."

homepage: homepage: http://www.kgw.com/sharedcontent/iraq/topstories/072203cciraqraid.b36b2aa5.html

Co-opting Concern for Women 22.Jul.2003 20:12


Very often, people who don't care about women attempt to co-opt those who do by appealing to women's concerns. The diet industry, for example, is famous for doing that. Or MacDonald's, the fast food giant that launched a multi-million dollar campain to convince women they feel our pain -- the busy working woman/supermom who just deserves a break.

Sometimes, these attempts are even more blatant. Like the Bush administration's implication that a concern for women under the Taliban was at the heart of their adventures in Afghanistan. (Remember Afghanistan? Thank God we sent troops there, eh?)

I'd like to believe this post isn't trying something cheap like that, but with a name like "kgw"....

Catwoman 22.Jul.2003 21:07


True. In fact it's not uncommon for sensational events to be co-opted to support dubious stances. "Justice for women" isn't the only such example in recent memory. That said, I admit to being glad this monster is no longer around. I will not lose any sleep over his demise.

Speaking of Bush's Concern for Women... 22.Jul.2003 21:18


U.S. media still REFUSES to mention Bush sexual assault lawsuit that Texas woman

See article:

Plus 22.Jul.2003 21:27


Plus you lose all credibility when you use such terms as "vile twins." Did you know they aren't twins? I can't tell. And Qusay was not known to have raped.

Accuracy is important.

bull. Qusay was a rapist 22.Jul.2003 21:37

Joan de Arc

Are you kidding about Qusay? He was a rapist as well. He supposedly was less kinky than his brother but a rapist still. Read some more articles.

justice for women? 22.Jul.2003 22:07


Yes, a happy day for women, where they only have to worry about being in the 25% of women in this country who are raped or in the 50% who suffer domestic abuse, being paid less than men for doing the same work, the government trying to tell them what they can do with their bodies, extremely small chances of reaching the upper echelon of business or government, but I'm sure women will be dancing in the streets over the murder of Saddam Hussein's sons.

Your tactic is transparent, and your concern an obvious lie. I can only hope you'll actually do something positive for the women's rights movement someday. This reminds me, well, of so many things. CatWoman nailed it pretty well though. There's always concern when it serves a purpose, and none when it doesn't. No concern for women in Afghanistan during the 80's, and none today, as we impose the brutal Northern Alliance, notorious for their own accounts of rape, especially rape used as a military tactic. Where is the concern for the hundreds of thousands of women who dies under the sanctions in Iraq for 12 years? Where is the concern for the struggles still facing women in this country? Where is the concern for the global problem of women's poverty? Well, I suppose if any of those women are sitting on oil or natural gas reserves, then they'll get our concerns and attention.

Show me then 22.Jul.2003 22:07


I've read articles that say that he didn't do that. If you have some that say he did, why don't you post them? I'd be glad to read them.

If you want to make accusations, why don't you follow them up with evidence?

i cannot fathom it 22.Jul.2003 22:56

iraqued my brain

Sure I've read all about Uday's exploits... was it the Enquirer or the Weekly World News? I can't quite remember...
Honestly, it was one or the other.

Me trying to figure out how a rape could happen involving the powerful sons of an infamous tyrant whose will none dare refuse, is like me trying to figure out how they could happen involving professional atheletes who could afford to stock a room with a whole harem of willing escorts... such things are beyond me to understand in the first place.

The only thing I feel for certain is that I will hear Saddam's son were cannibals, if it proves necessary to the Bush adminstration's image or goals, which highlights the precise problem with blown credibility. Zbigniew Brzezinski (I was surprised) sharply critized Bush for gambling with credibility, because once you've worn out your word, things may happen, and by rights, no one should believe you that they do after that... and unless they found about 600 metric tons of sarin, mustard gas, and VX on these two sleazy sons, I'm not sure I care...
 http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/02/iraq.weapons/ is why were supposed to be in Iraq, not because of the abysmal lack of social skills of Uday and Qusay. I don't see this as a victory, even if it should happen to be for real.

purrr... 23.Jul.2003 16:00


it can't be that hard to believe that one could support the Bush administration's actions in Iraq AND be for women's rights, can it?

huh? 23.Jul.2003 18:24

True feminist

I'm not sure what's up with all of these psuedo-feminists who in one breath defend the reputation of Qusay and in the other demand fair treatment for women everywhere. As someone who is first a feminist and everything else second, this is troubling behavior. To find women backed into a corner where they are defending Qusay, of all people, is breath-taking.

Subtitles for those who need them 23.Jul.2003 18:59


For "meow": Yes. In fact, it's impossible. Ask the women whose families were bombed into submission by US forces how liberated they feel. Ask the women whose children starved to death under not one, but TWO bush regimes. And as "someone" pointed out, ask the women here in this county whose lives were not improved by the billions of dollars in resources poured out all over Iraq and traded for the blood of children.

For "True Feminist": First, read again. No one is "defend[ing] the reputation of Qusay" in this string. Where did you get that? Anonymous points out that Qusay was "not known to have raped." Although I have no idea whether this is correct or not, I hardly think that counts as much of a defense of character. Joan argues that he was (is?) a rapist, and no one else even mentions him.

Second, if you are, in fact, a "true feminist," then you ought to recognize the destructiveness and downright silliness of challenging other people's right to identify as feminists based on the fact that they have different opinions than you. You do not speak for all feminists, nor should you. Speaking of co-opting women's concerns....

schizopussy 23.Jul.2003 19:15


Catwoman tells "true feminist"

"Second, if you are, in fact, a "true feminist," then you ought to recognize the destructiveness and downright silliness of challenging other people's right to identify as feminists based on the fact that they have different opinions than you. You do not speak for all feminists, nor should you. Speaking of co-opting women's concerns.... "

Just after telling me: "For "meow": Yes. In fact, it's impossible. ..."

[to be both for women's rights and in agreement with the bush administration]

So Catwoman is challenging my right to identify as being in favor of women's rights, while AT THE SAME TIME telling a third party she doesn't have the right to "speak for all feminists." Hiss!!!

Backed into a corner? 23.Jul.2003 19:50


Backed into a corner? By whom? Are you nuts?

I didn't say Qusay was a good guy. I was disturbed by the sloppiness of the original post. It doesn't reflect well upon the poster, and unfortunately on the point of view (feminists, women against rape) when the person supposedly espousing that point of view doesn't have their facts straight.

It is really irritating when people claiming to represent a larger group make uniformed proclamations. It implies that we are all that uninformed. These are not issues that should be messed around with.

A Brief Comment on Western Media reports about Hussein's Sons 23.Jul.2003 23:03


I don't know if any of the allegations concerning Hussein's sons are true, but its interesting that many of the posters above have yet to cite a specific, concrete and verified example of the criminal acts committed by Uday or Qusay against women.

Here is a brief comment concerning some of the atrocities tales about Hussein's sons that have been reported by the Western media and the New York Times in particular. Of particular note is the fact that the report specifically questions how the veracity of many of these anecdotes may be problematic and are often part of the disinformation proffered by Iraqi exile groups for their own political purposes. Its funny to see supposed "feminists" uncritically swallow corporate media reporting on any issue, whether that be Saddam Hussein's sons or whatever. Again, the rule when assessing any Media report or coverage of an issue is Caveat Lector--reader beware:


Memo on the Margin (Free)--

Judith Miller, warhawk reporter
July 23, 2003
Send to a Colleague
Printer-Friendly Version

Memo To: Bill Keller, NYTimes executive editor
From: Jude Wanniski
Re: The neo-con distaff links at AEI

Now that you have settled into your new job as executive editor of the most important newspaper in the world, I think you should seriously consider reassigning Judith Miller to Afghanistan from her present Baghdad beat. To any serious reader of her coverage in Iraq it has been plain for many, many moons that she is joined at the hip to the neo-cons at the American Enterprise Institute who cooked up the war, particularly Richard Perle and Laurie Mylroie. I note today, for example, she writes out of the Times Washington Bureau about the brutalities of Saddam's sons, Uday and Qusay, repeating a long string of anecdotes that may very well be true, but may also be part of the disinformation campaign aimed at demonizing Saddam orchestrated by Perle going back 20 years. My own sources in the intelligence agencies tell me few of these anecdotes are known to be accurate, but are part of the raw data supplied on a hearsay basis by Iraqi expatriates who have been enemies of the regime. If you read today's special report by Paul Sperry of WorldNetDaily.com, you will get a quick course on the distaff linkages of the neo-con warhawks. He also notes that the intelligence agencies no longer consider Judith Miller's sources reliable for their own purposes. I'm just trying to be helpful, Bill, hoping you will avoid some of the errors that led to your predecessor's untimely departure.

Weird stuff 24.Jul.2003 09:02

another true feminst

Someone posts something saying that the killing of two men in Iraq is "justice for women." Someone else points out that this is yet another example of co-optation of women by cynical interests who don't know who they are dealing with. Good point. Then, the thread deteriorates into flippy semantics. After someone posts stats showing how really very little women have to celebrate here, the thread returns to a trivial pursuit about whether or not anyone said nasty enough things about Qusay. Does anyone else see a problem here?

As for "true feminist," I have to agree with Cat Woman on this. It's very destructive to go around playing "who is the true feminist." This was a wedge among women for some time. Just the "right to life/right to choose" debate shows that. Many feminists recognize the injustice of allowing abortion to be anything but a women's issue. They want the freedom to choose when they will procreate, and they don't want the state or anyone else who has no clue stepping in telling them what to do. These are real feminists. On the other hand, there are also women whose spiritual and philosophical beliefs center around woman as sacred. All life is sacred, and motherhood is sacred. They do not support abortion on those grounds. They are real feminists also. And, there are women who recognize justifications for oppression in the pro-choice rhetoric, and so suggest taking a second look at the issue. Again, real feminists. Women from all sides of this debate have only recently come together to see the similarities between their positions (all center on an essential value of women, and all believe the choice about women's bodies must belong to women), and have learned to respect the views of those on different sides.

No, it isn't productive to elevate yourself to the status of speaking for all women. And I suspect that post, since it so clearly missed the point and skewed what previous comments said, was probably only trying to co-opt, just as the original comment was. Good call, Cat woman.

Also, meow gets into the mix, but I think meow missed an important point. No one is talking about whether or not you're a feminist, because you haven't identified as one. Instead, you have suggested that someone could be supporting Bush policies at the same time you are supporting women's rights. Bush's policies are the antithesis of women's rights, so yes, it's not possible.

Anonymous is also right, accuracy is important when speaking for others. So it's good that this forum allows us to correct problems in articles.

to true feminist 24.Jul.2003 09:09


Who is defending Qusay? What are you talking about? Oh, I know. Your other name is kgw, isn't it? Keep trying.

"true" feminists 24.Jul.2003 11:11


This is unbelievable!!

After Cat Woman takes it on the chin for telling other women what they can believe in and still be for "women's rights", or a "feminists" we get this gem from a so-called "another true feminist."

"As for "true feminist," I have to agree with Cat Woman on this. It's very destructive to go around playing "who is the true feminist."

Umm... Cat Woman was the one telling people who can be feminists or not and from the looks of the rest of your statement now you are too!

"Instead, you have suggested that someone could be supporting Bush policies at the same time you are supporting women's rights. Bush's policies are the antithesis of women's rights, so yes, it's not possible."

Got news for you. It is an opinion, not a fact, that Bush's policies are the antithesis of women's rights. It is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but there are a number of women who are concerned about women's rights who also think Bush is doing a pretty good job at protecting them. You may not know these women, but it doesn't mean they do not exist.

feminists need no ideology test ... just fighting patriarchy is a full time job 24.Jul.2003 14:34

White Lilac

Meow -

Why are you so angry and divisive? CatWoman hasn't been inconsistent in her logic or her writings, and certainly doesn't deserve the continued ad hominem attack you're sending her way.

There is a difference between stating an opinion and stating a fact, and while you specifically acknowledge this difference, I wonder if you fully appreciate it ... otherwise you wouldn't be vitriolic and hissing.

When CatWoman states "In fact, it's impossible [to support the Bush administration's actions in Iraq and be for women's rights]," she is voicing an opinion, just as you point out. Isn't this obvious? Using the words "In fact" does nothing to change her opinion into a fact. Opinion is distinguished from fact by the content and context of the statement.

It is an opinion even though it is not prefaced by the blatantly telltale phrases ('I think,' 'I believe,' 'It is my opinion that ...' etc.). It is an opinion because we may well find someone who does support Bush in Iraq and also supports women's rights. Although CatWoman could write volumes proving how supporting both positions is mutually exclusive, her statement would remain an opinion because both subjects are highly subjective. As she points out, persons identifying as feminists have differing opinions on what being a feminist means, and it follows that they could differ on what it means to support women's rights.

However, when CatWoman tells "True Feminist" "You do not speak for all feminists," this is a fact. I assume CatWoman identifies as a feminist, but I can't speak for her. It is sufficient that I am a feminist, and can assure you that "True Feminist" doesn't speak for me. Therefore, it is a fact that "True Feminist" does not speak for all feminists, because I am a counterexample.

Now consider your previous statement:

"So Catwoman is challenging my right to identify as being in favor of women's rights, while AT THE SAME TIME telling a third party she doesn't have the right to "speak for all feminists."

Your implication is that this is contradictory and hypocritical. But why? CatWoman is challenging you on behalf of CatWoman, not on behalf of all feminists. It's her opinion (that Bush in Iraq and women's rights are mutually exclusive) that is motivating her. I see no evidence that she is trying to assume the role of Mouthpiece Of All True Feminists, as you imply. Since she does not pretend to speak for anyone but herself, she remains consistent with the second half of your statement (telling a third party she doesn't speak for all feminists).

I am also going to challenge you ... and to be perfectly clear, I'm doing this personally, and not on behalf of All True Feminists.

When you state "Cat Woman takes it on the chin," not only have you failed to prove any such thing, but you adopt rhetoric that is angry, confrontational, testosterone-laden and (dare I say it) patriarchal. You continue to spew your anger with phrases such as "schizopussy," "Hiss!!!," and "Got news for you." Where does this anger come from?

I accept that you (and others) feel you support Bush in Iraq and also support women's rights. I agree with CatWoman that such a stance is impossible, but my feeling so is not the definitive word on the matter. Instead, we just have different views on what Bush is doing in Iraq, and may also differ on what it means to support women's rights. Simply because I disagree with you doesn't mean that I a) hate you, b) wish you would shrivel up and die, or c) would rather kill myself than be marooned on a deserted island with you. My disagreement with you means just that ... that I disagree with you!! I can still share my cookies with you, invite you over for potlucks, and feed your cat when you're out of town.

It is healthy, normal and natural for people to disagree. While unhealthy, it unfortunately is not abnormal or unnatural for people to verbally or physically attack those with whom they disagree. This is a plague of patriarchal societies ... and need to be offering counterexamples to that.

Remember, this entire comment is only my opinion anyhow!

To White Lilac 25.Jul.2003 08:17


Wow! Thanks. Thanks for the defense. Couldn't have said it better myself. I guess sometimes it does pay to revisit an old post to see what was said. You go, girl.

And thanks "another true feminist" too.

Just to throw in my extraneous thoughts, yes, I continue to believe that bush's policies are in utter opposition to the concerns of women. In fact they are in opposition to humanity itself, the earth itself, and any idea of morality I have ever heard convincingly set forth. I have difficulty believing that anyone with any kind of concern for any of these things could ever support bush. And after a careful reading of "meow's" simplistic whimperings, I still believe this. Meow never states that s/he is in support of women's rights at all, but only asks whether it's hard to believe one could support women and bush. My answer continues to be yes. I wonder...which of these do you suppose Meow supports? Bet I could guess.

These are my thoughts. For the record, though, I really respect the philosophies shared in the last few paragraphs of White Lilac's comment. Yes, it is healthy and natural for people to disagree. If we can all learn to accept that and still "feed each other's cats" we will have come a long way. I'm surely not there yet, but you set a helpful example.