Talk:Qusay Hussein

---

This artical claims that Uday Hussein remained single his whole life, while the artical on Uday says that he was breifly married. Which is true?

---

Why is this article called Qusai Hussein, and not Qusay Hussein? A quick Google search gives 980 hits for Qusai against 2720 for Qusay. And both the BBC and the New York Times write the name as Qusay. D.D. 21:05 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Can someone please provide proof of this statement:

"even though the U.S. military would have entered Iraq regardless of whether they left"

I agree...it's not factual

add the US administration "wanted", and it becomes factual

---

Is there any evidence at all that he was gay? I think that was added by a vandal, and now we have adopted it. P3d0 12:04, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

• On Google 'Qusay Hussein homosexual' yields Wikipedia first and nothing beyond that was relevant. I will remove the line unless there's some evidence.

Picture

I would replace the Ace of Clubs -picture with a proper headshot, there's a POVish feel to it. The same goes with the with the picture of Uday Hussein.194.157.147.48 22:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

His family.

Iraqi experts might consider adding more personal details — his wife, children, etc. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 07:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"he was shot by U.S. forces upon entering the room"

In regards to Qusay's son Mustapha, I think there is a NPOV violation here. It makes it seem as if Mustapha was just summarily shot as U.S troops entered. A quick google search on "Qusay's Son" will reveal that many reports claim that U.S troops were fired upon entering the house. Other reports claim that there were no survivors of the battle. The Washington Post even quotes a commander that claims that "They all were dead" when they entered the house suggesting that Mustapha died in the 6 hour battle, and was not shot when U.S Troops went to recover the bodies.

It wasn't as if there is full on proof that they killed a white flagged surrendering hostile. Considering the high profile of the people in the house, it would also make sense that U.S troops would want to keep any survivors of the gun battle alive for questioning, and that executing any survivors would be a major PR downfall in Iraq.

All I ask is for contributors to cite their sources, especially with claims like "so and so was executed as U.S troops entered."

I have edited the section to read:

There were reports that Qusay's 14-year-old son Mustapha was the last one to die in the battle. Brig. Gen. Frank Helmick, the assistant commander of 101st Airborne has commented that all occupants of the home were dead before U.S troops entered the home after the fierce gun battle.

I have also noted my sources. If someone can find a reason why this should not be edited to read like above, please comment. Joseph 19:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Arabic spelling of Qusay's name

I can't be certain of this, but I was told that Qusay Hussein's name as it is spelled in Arabic in this article – left to right – is, in essence, just a jumble of letters, as Arabic is read and written right to left. Uday's name is supposedly spelled correctly though. Can anyone confirm or deny this? Cromag 13:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sadaams death, and qusay's death

"Saddam was buried at his birthplace of Al-Awja in Tikrit, Iraq, 3 km (2 mi) from his sons Uday and Qusay Hussein, on December 31, 2006" This is a quote from the sadaam execution page,

"Died July 22, 2003 Mosul, Iraq" This is what is stated as quasay's death.

So Qusay Hussein rose from the dead to bury his father in 2006, considering he died in 2003? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Klorkurou (talk • contribs) 17:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

The information in the article on Saddam Hussein implies that the location at which he was buried is not far from the graves of Qusay and Uday. Cromag ^{talk to me} 18:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someome could load a better picture. The current one is somewhat distorted. Odin1 (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

POV dispute

I hold that publishing Qusay's post-mortem photo is not in keeping with a neutral point of view. I also hold that the photo may violate the Geneva Convention, as contended by the International Committee of the Fourth International and discussed in the 24 July 2003 issue of The Independent and Issue No. 649 of Al-Ahram Weekly (31 July-6 August 2003). Thank you. -- JeffBillman (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)