Did the US Troops really capture Saddam
- Thread starter JFC
- Start date
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Originally posted by vimto
D'ya think they'll put him on trial?
That'd be even more fun. Can you imagine Rumsfeld & Co. being called as material witnessess
WOW
I can't wait! I hope it happens. If Saddam goes down he can take the whole fucking shit pile down with him. I think there may be a way of chucking Kissnger into the mix too.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Like that's going to happen.
I only just came across that site. But it sources the interview with Saddam's daughter, the Al-Arabiya television network. Have you been watching Al-Arabiya and all other Arabic television channels? Just maybe, your claim that the whole of the world's media accepts that Saddam is in captivity was mistaken?
For all the complicity of our media in accepting the word of Bush and Blair I can find little evidence for the claim and the DNA question begs investigation in all the stories that accept it. Remember WMD? There was only ONE media organisation that dared to rubbish Colin Powell's scaremongering, that I recall. Strangely that was a news source that you have questioned as having any credibility whatsover (due to the unpalatability of Anatoly Kournikov's revelations) - Pravda!
But let's also note that your whole argument is that we should only believe that which we read in the papers. You offer no evidence or proper discussion, just the classis debating fallacy Appeal to Popularity. So much for freedom of thought!
editor
hiraethified
Then perhaps you might be so kind as to point me in the direction of a post where you clearly answer my two questions, without equivocation.
Here's the questions again. They're very simple.
So exactly who - in the entire world - has actually come out and proclaimed that it wasn't Saddam who was captured?
And why do you believe them?
I've linked to a web article which is very sceptical about the claim and makes reference to a lot of other people having doubts including members of the Hussein family. So that's at least one other person.
But before that, even if I may have been the only one - I don't care. The US has made a claim for which the evidence appears flimsy and suspect. My position was made very clear in my post at 1.28am.
I even went as far as to point out that your whole argument was the debating fallacy, 'appeal to popularity'. But you then go and repeat it!
Perhaps you could answer my questions?
But before that, even if I may have been the only one - I don't care. The US has made a claim for which the evidence appears flimsy and suspect. My position was made very clear in my post at 1.28am.
I even went as far as to point out that your whole argument was the debating fallacy, 'appeal to popularity'. But you then go and repeat it!
Perhaps you could answer my questions?
But Julie, you simply couldn't tell his doubles apart from the guy, and they appeared as Saddam in public on all sorts of occasions, even when TV was going. Iraqis used to play 'spot the double' - not by looking at his face - but by watching his bodyguards... when they appeared relaxed, they reckoned it was one of the doubles. Other clues was that a big picture of Saddam would not be behind a double or that there might not be an ultra-close-up.
Interesting to note that not only did Saddam have cosmetically-enhanced doubles, but so did his sons... I wonder how they are getting on?
I've also come across a person who looked so like me in a photograph that I couldn't determine if it actually was me or not.
Interesting to note that not only did Saddam have cosmetically-enhanced doubles, but so did his sons... I wonder how they are getting on?
I've also come across a person who looked so like me in a photograph that I couldn't determine if it actually was me or not.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
I live in hope, unlike you Canuck!
Dr J...if the public has become so adept at spotting the double (as written in the bit you posted) do you not think that there would be a heap of Iraqi's saying..No, thats not him it's a double?....I haven't heard any of this at all yet?...Also I doubt very much that the yanks would fall for it for very long. Unless your saying it is them who are pulling the swifty?...and if that is the case then why?...
Originally posted by DrJazzz
Oh gosh!! Would you ever have thought it! The poor chap has terminal cancer and could die without having a chance to speak in a court of law.
Now that would be a surprise.
Just like you said that Ian Huntley would never ever take the stand.
In fact your words were, "I guarantee...."
What have you got to say about that?
I think he is saying that the US is in league with Saddam (as they were) and so has escorte him and his sons out of Iraq ages ago.
Me, I don't think the US needs to work with Saddam. I think they stabbed him in the back. For GWB or the US (or UK) administration, its better to have an enemy killed than pretend.
My q is, why do they bother? They have no scruples, so why don't they just actually do what they said they were doing? ie get Saddam and sons?
Mind you, DrJ has said that he's proved that Saddam's sons are alive....
First case of proof by lack of (one piece of) evidence made public I've ever heard of.
Me: I'd be sceptical, but DrJ - its proof.
And I could start talking about past bullshit DrJ posts, including mad statements.
Basically, DrJ talks shit.
Wess said:
The US military are people who, if past pronouncements are anything to go by, are people we have to be highly suspicious of. Remember Jessica Lynch? Remember WMD? Remember the previous deaths of Saddam Hussein? And of course, the Hussein sons, for which the DNA tests never came back from the Laboratory.
Yes I am suggesting that this is indeed a propaganda coup, done with the full cooperation of Saddam himself, who certainly wouldn't mind being officially dead, for much the same reasons that Lord Lucan wouldn't.
You might want to have a read of the escortation of 'Saddam Hussein to safety' thread in which an Iraqi general is reported as swearing he saw a fleet of Mercs drive into an American Cargo plane during a ceasefire.
AFAIK there are large numbers of Iraqis who do not necessarily believe that Saddam is in custody. Don't assume - like editor does - that because our media doesn't report them, they don't exist.
In any case, I have a new theory - an original DrJazzz one - as to why the guy in the video looks so much like Saddam - it also explains the dyed black hair, and the beard too.
Watch this space!
flimsier, I can't 'prove' the Hussein sons are alive. But I think the US claim to have killed them was exposed as a sham. Or how do you account for the fact that the much-trumpeted DNA tests never came back, as editor and others assumed they were going to?
I love this quote. Ed any comments?montevideo said:
I take it that cnn, fox, sky, bbc, cbs, and hutchinsons are more credible than anything one could find on the internet then. Judging by mainstreams media's tardy performance a la gulf war 2 we will have to wait for almost 12 months for the truth to start filtering through.editor said:
The mainstream media reported that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam was building nuclear weapons, etc, etc, etc, over 12 months ago. Thats where relying on your so called trusty sources gets you, 22000 plus Iraqis dead and over 500 americans killed.
If it agrees with reason and is conducive to the benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it. If not - throw it out. Simple
This GuluFuture article puts it rather well. Here's the summary... apologies for the C&P...
World Conned as US Grabs Iraq Santa
editor
hiraethified
Out of curiosity, do you have any problems with whats 'reported' on the rest of that site http://www.gulufuture.com/ ?DrJazzz said:
And why do you choose to believe their version of events over the rest of the world's media? What special investigative qualities do you feel they possess?
Perhaps you could tell me something about the author? What's his/her background/motive/political allegiance?
After all they're claiming to have the scoop of the century, boldly proclaiming that they've uncovered a huge conspiracy that "conned" the entire world, so it seems entirely reasonable to question their credibility, don't you think?
editor said:
And why dont you inform us why Blair, Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld, Rice, Cheney, Perle, Kristol, etc are more credible, when they have been exposed as outright liars. The biggest con was to take our young men and women into a war to remove wmd when none were known to exist from the start and where they have risked their lives and died alongside 22000 plus Iraqis.
<to editor>
That's an interesting post, considering Raisin D'Etre's points made four posts ago. I guess the challenge is to judge things for oneself rather than just believing what you read in the papers, and the specific point here is that the burden of proof is on the US to prove that they have Saddam, not on me or gulufuture to disprove it. This they are failing to do in the most extraordinary fashion, and I know what my conclusion is.
I'd be interested in any points you have to make about the details of the argument rather than seek to discredit anyone who disagrees with the US claim - on the basis that anyone who questions the big media must be unbelievable.
But it may interest you to know that I think the man in the video is indeed Saddam himself!
That's an interesting post, considering Raisin D'Etre's points made four posts ago. I guess the challenge is to judge things for oneself rather than just believing what you read in the papers, and the specific point here is that the burden of proof is on the US to prove that they have Saddam, not on me or gulufuture to disprove it. This they are failing to do in the most extraordinary fashion, and I know what my conclusion is.
I'd be interested in any points you have to make about the details of the argument rather than seek to discredit anyone who disagrees with the US claim - on the basis that anyone who questions the big media must be unbelievable.
But it may interest you to know that I think the man in the video is indeed Saddam himself!
I imagine that you think that they just had a little wag-the-dog filming session in Saddam's hidey hole in Syria.
Look, there's a hell of a lot of quite respected minds who don't see any reason to believe that it isn't Saddam. I know that academics will be as respected by you as gulufuture is by me, but to me, their opinion carries quite a bit of weight.
In any case: once you put the burden of proof onto the US, you've set youself up with an unassailable argument - you can't ever be proved wrong, because you know that this administration isn't interested in winning over skeptics. So we just go round and round and round in these rather dull circles.
Anyway: I've made it quite clear that I believe that they have Brian Blessed in captivity. The burden's on the US to prove that it isn't - and have you seen him around recently? I haven't....
Look, there's a hell of a lot of quite respected minds who don't see any reason to believe that it isn't Saddam. I know that academics will be as respected by you as gulufuture is by me, but to me, their opinion carries quite a bit of weight.
In any case: once you put the burden of proof onto the US, you've set youself up with an unassailable argument - you can't ever be proved wrong, because you know that this administration isn't interested in winning over skeptics. So we just go round and round and round in these rather dull circles.
Anyway: I've made it quite clear that I believe that they have Brian Blessed in captivity. The burden's on the US to prove that it isn't - and have you seen him around recently? I haven't....
editor
hiraethified
But it's just not the 'big media' who aren't disporting Saddam's arrest. It's just about anyone who's ever known or had dealings with the man. Yet you still prefer to believe the stuff written on some website.DrJazzz said:
I don't believe everything the government tells me. I believe the 'justification' for the Iraq adventure was a farrago of lies, based on pure self interest. I also suspect that Blair was effectively suckered by the US.
But that doesn't mean I have to swallow any old shite written on dodgy health food websites penned by anonymous authors with no journalistic credentials or references whatsoever.
And I'll ask again: And why do you choose to believe their version of events over the rest of the world's media? What special investigative qualities do you feel they possess?
Well two similar posts from editor and infobomb.
You keep trying to make it look as if I'm 'following' someone. Not the case. I posted what I thought pretty much soon after the supposed capture. The 'gulufuture' site I only came across very recently and it just happens to echo my views, as well as coming up with more details that I was unaware of.
Infobomb - I don't disrespect 'academics' - far from it and that is a ridiculous thing to say. However the question 'is Saddam actually in captivity' is not one that I have found any academic seriously addressing, nor anyone in the big media who are as likely to ask that question as George Bush's dog is to run up and piss on his leg.
Of course the burden of proof is on the US military to prove that they have him. If I said I had Elvis hiding in my cellar, would the burden of proof be on you to prove that I didn't? Should you be expected to believe me if you could not disprove the assertion? I don't think so! If it is the real Saddam there is absolutely no reason why we could not have LIVE tv footage. No reason why his location need be kept secret. No reason not to fingerprint him. Etc.
You keep trying to make it look as if I'm 'following' someone. Not the case. I posted what I thought pretty much soon after the supposed capture. The 'gulufuture' site I only came across very recently and it just happens to echo my views, as well as coming up with more details that I was unaware of.
Infobomb - I don't disrespect 'academics' - far from it and that is a ridiculous thing to say. However the question 'is Saddam actually in captivity' is not one that I have found any academic seriously addressing, nor anyone in the big media who are as likely to ask that question as George Bush's dog is to run up and piss on his leg.
Of course the burden of proof is on the US military to prove that they have him. If I said I had Elvis hiding in my cellar, would the burden of proof be on you to prove that I didn't? Should you be expected to believe me if you could not disprove the assertion? I don't think so! If it is the real Saddam there is absolutely no reason why we could not have LIVE tv footage. No reason why his location need be kept secret. No reason not to fingerprint him. Etc.
I'm unaware of such people that you refer to who have identified Saddam having met him in captivity. Can you name any of them? If so that would certainly be a valid contribution to the discussion - but if you are just assuming they exist because the US military says so, you can take a running jump...
Similar threads
