Did the US Troops really capture Saddam

[Jazzz]

I am reluctant to further explain my reasoning with you editor, you ask endless questions, none very politely. And I have addressed all those points in previous posts.

 

[infobomb]

Dr Jazz:

Part of your logic appears to be that there is no way that a dictator would have spent the last 8 months in that hole.

Do you find it inconceivable that he might have hidden in the hole once he realised US troops were closing in on him? That he might have 'gone to ground'?

 

[Jazzz]

But I will say this for editor:

You seem to believe the US claim on the basis that other people believe it - that's lazy. If my theory about Saddam is correct, you won't find him turning up again - he's done a runner - and his daughter wouldn't jeopardise that (although she might not be able to tell the difference between Saddam and one of his doubles, they were superb, plus Saddam had lots of families, you don't know how well this daughter knew her father anyway).

The point is - good statements about DNA evidence! Fingerprint evidence! Where are these? Why haven't we got them?

infobomb - that hole looks like a cell to me. A place for someone to be kept captive. In fact it is much much worse than any prison cell. I can't rule out that scenario you describe but I would be surprised that Saddam would wilfully spend a moment in such a place. But that is not my point, which is that the US is not proving their claim.

 

[infobomb]

I think you'll find that pride tends not to get in the way of the very primal instinct of survival - which is probably what kicked in when Saddam found that troops were closing on him.

 

[editor]

Originally posted by DrJazzz
You seem to believe the US claim on the basis that other people believe it - that's lazy.

Not really - I'd say that there's more than enough people who would dearly love it NOT to be Saddam who was arrested, yet they seem to have gone strangely quiet on the matter.

But even if we ignore the millions in Iraq who seem satisfied with the official version, what about the trivial matter of the upcoming trial?

Or will this daughter-fooling Saddam SuperDouble manage to fool the entire world with a better-than-Mike-Yarwood full time impersonation of Saddam?

And why would this uber-doppelganger put himself through the ordeal now that Saddam's regime has gone for good?

Any ideas?

But let's try another approach.

Why not list the hard evidence you have that proves it wasn't Saddam who was arrested?

 

[montevideo]

Originally posted by infobomb
Raisin has studiously avoided all of my questions.

There are dates on the tree. The dates are yellow. Raisin has not proven that it is impossible for yellow dates to be hanging on a tree in December in Iraq. He has called it into doubt, but it's all rather inconclusive.

To back up his claim that the photo must be doctored, he claims that Saddam could not have been in operational control of the guerilla forces. First, there's the assumption that the one follows necessarily from the other. Secondly, there's the assumption that guerilla forces cannot continue to operate after a commander is captured or killed. And thirdly, there's the assumption that Saddam did not stray from his spider hole for 8 whole months.

Then there's the sticky issue of Saddam's family members recognising him.

Which questions has Raisin answered, then?

But that's exactly it. It's not about 'proving' anything. It's about asking questions. Calling into doubt. That is the most any of us can do.

Raisin has answered, with valid information & references, the questions raised concerning dates.

We have yellow dates hanging from a tree in december. Wouldn't you like to know the how/what/why of their presense there? Just to reassure yourself?

Instead of launching a hostile barrage of insults at someone about their opinions, pre-figured with links to spurious websites of a dubious nature?

 

[infobomb]

Well, he's raised doubts, and given what we've all seen from the links etc, I personally don't think that they really call the capture into question. I've raised doubts about parts of his argument, and he's avoided dealing with them.

I don't think that I've been particularly abusive about it either, though I do find his evasion a little frustrating.

 

[montevideo]

wasn't having a go at you personally, more the editor's tactics.

 

[editor]

Originally posted by montevideo
wasn't having a go at you personally, more the editor's tactics.

And don't tell me! Including a pointless dig like the above isn't 'having a go' when you're doing it?



.....I believe you're already very well acquainted with Mr Kettle and Mr Black?

 

[fela fan]

Originally posted by editor
And don't tell me! Including a pointless dig like the above isn't 'having a go' when you're doing it?



.....I believe you're already very well acquainted with Mr Kettle and Mr Black?

So is every human being to varying degrees (perhaps with the exception of th yogi masters), so don't be exempting yourself from that pair.

 

[fela fan]

lock and light

... quite a keen observation there mate!

But there is a reason for everything in life, however i'm not going into this reason here.

But do be careful about quoting me out of context - context is everything in life if any true meaning is to be understood .

 

[montevideo]

Originally posted by editor
And don't tell me! Including a pointless dig like the above isn't 'having a go' when you're doing it?



.....I believe you're already very well acquainted with Mr Kettle and Mr Black?

Would you consider your attitude to raison hostile & insulting?

When have i ever been hostile or insulting to you?

 

[editor]

Originally posted by fela fan
So is every human being to varying degrees (perhaps with the exception of th yogi masters), so don't be exempting yourself from that pair.

Oh, I'm not.

But I've grown bored with this latest load of non-existent 'conspiracy' bollocks now.

 

[Athos]

Originally posted by DrJazzz
... The point is - good statements about DNA evidence! Fingerprint evidence! Where are these? Why haven't we got them?...

Come off it DrJazzz! We all know that, if you were presented with DNA evidence etc., you'd say that it had been faked. No evidence would satisfy you; you're determined to believe conspiracy theories.

 

[montevideo]

Originally posted by Athos
Come off it DrJazzz! We all know that, if you were presented with DNA evidence etc., you'd say that it had been faked. No evidence would satisfy you; you're determined to believe conspiracy theories.

...or constantly question the prevailing orthodoxy.


Take your pick

 

[Athos]

Originally posted by montevideo
...or constantly question the prevailing orthodoxy.


Take your pick

My experience of him suggests that DrJazzz would refuse to accept the authenticity of any fingerprint or DNA evidence, so it's pointless for him to call for it.

 

[editor]

Originally posted by montevideo
...or constantly question the prevailing orthodoxy.


Take your pick

YOu mean like the way he 'questioned the prevailing orthodoxy' by declaring the mass-murdering, child killer Huntley innocent of all crimes and a victim of a hideous cover up because of, err, an untrained pooches nose?

Take your prick.

 

[XerxesVargas]

I get confused by the stubbourn headedness of the conspiracy nuts here. I just dont get it. The theory that the Saddam capture was engineered by the US as a stun just doesnt hold water. But they wont address that.

So I ask again to Dr J and the conspiracy crew these questions:

1) Assuming that it was a set up, why now? Both Bush and Blair didnt really need the good PR in early December. Blair has Hutton soon and Bush could do with a good boost in the middle of next year for his election campaign, as US soldiers will continue to dies over the comming months. Already, the good PR effect has worn off and Blair in particular is back in trouble about the war and Hutton. What was gained by then annoucing it when they did?

If you were Saddam, would you live in such a tiny hole??? It's an extraordinary prospect for such a dictator.

2) The fact that it was a little, not very well appointed hole Saddam wouldn't have hidden in it? Oh come on!! It was never suggested that he was in there for weeks on end, it was a bolt hole to run to when trouble was approaching. Is there an international standard for Dictitorial hiding places? Its not an arguement. Its certainly not proof that it was a set up. All his nice holes are full of soldiers.

youre statement on this shows that you clearly dont understand what this hole was for. He didnt live in it, he lived in the hut and went to hide there.

On what evidence are people believing that this is the real Saddam, and not one of his doubles? Why is it that those of here like Raisin, Montevideo, et al, are being browbeaten by editor into accepting the words of the US military - a group known to be in the business of talking complete bollocks and setting up propaganda coups - instead of saying, well, where is the proof?

The proof? Well if it wasnt the real Saddam then why hasnt the "real" one come forward to explode this myth in one quick TV appearance or taped message?

What reason do you have to doubt the US military on this? Why would they lie? What is it that they are trying to protect or cover up? If you believe that they are lying then state what you think they get out of it?

But what really gets me is this. It makes absolutely no sense at all for posters like me to be called to present 'proof' for being sceptical, and the US allowed to say whatever it wants, and provide no evidence at all for its claims, let alone proof!

But then Dr J you are arguing that you should be allowed, unchallenged, to spout any old shit you like. You accept nothing as proof. You trust joe Vials over the BBC, you say that the bovt/military lie but dont explain what their reasoning for lying is. They cant just do it all the time, they are far more sophosticated than that. I dont always buy the official line, but I wait till I have good reason to doubt it, lack of DNA, some shit about dates and the fact that it was a scruffy hole do not constitute half a reason.

 

[Raisin D'etre]

Originally posted by editor
The BIG, BIG, BIG difference is that I'm not proclaiming that I've discovered the 'truth' about a huge evil conspiracy that is deceiving the entire (presumably stupid ) world based on something I 'found' on the web somewhere.

I'm not claiming to know more about Saddam than his own daughter and the Iraqi people, neither am I claiming that they've all been deceived because clever ol' me found some vague, anonymously authored information on a website, somewhere that sort of suggests, maybe, that, err, the dates can't possibly grow in December. (Except they can)

Raisin is.

I never claimed to have discovered a conspiracy. I asked you to explain the anomalies. You could not because all you had to rely on was Hutchinsons and your brutish EDITOR KNOWS WHATS BEST. I showed you plenty of information that if you had read would have given you a more knowledgeable stance on the subject, and the reason I did that was because of your brutish treatment of Dr Jazz. I even used your sources but you dont even read the links you post!!!!!!!!!!!

So, then you try to make me out as some kind of conspiracy nut who believes in aliens all because you pry into my private information and find a Marshall Mcluchan quote...... destroy! destroy! destroy! Obviously, you do not read anything but Hutchinsons. I have news for you. Hutchinsons is just an encyclopedia. If you want to develop your intellect you will have to read further than that.

 

[editor]

Originally posted by Raisin D'etre
...and your brutish EDITOR KNOWS WHATS BEST

I like that so much I'm going to put it in my profile for a bit.

And for the last time, there is NOTHING private about what you put in your PUBLIC profile, so quit your whining.

Do you believe aliens in UFOs visit the Earth, btw? After bringing up the topic of your UFO sighting yourself, you seem to have had immense trouble answering that simple, straightforward question.

 

[Athos]

Originally posted by editor
I like that so much I'm going to put it in my profile for a bit.

And for the last time, there is NOTHING private about what you put in your PUBLIC profile, so quit your whining.

Do you believe aliens in UFOs visit the Earth, btw? After bringing up the topic of your UFO sighting yourself, you seem to have had immense trouble answering that simple, straightforward question.

You've actually written 'brutish editor knows whats bets. '

 

[editor]

Originally posted by Athos
You've actually written 'brutish editor knows whats bets. '

(bluffs)

..Didn't I tell you I was keen on the horses?

(editor hastily heads off to admin panel)

 

[montevideo]

Originally posted by editor
YOu mean like the way he 'questioned the prevailing orthodoxy' by declaring the mass-murdering, child killer Huntley innocent of all crimes and a victim of a hideous cover up because of, err, an untrained pooches nose?

Take your prick.

Questioned it. Didn't say he always gets it right.

Originally posted by editor
Take your prick.

Nice touch.

 

[editor]

Originally posted by montevideo
Questioned it. Didn't say he always gets it right.

I don't think you know what 'questioning' means.

To question something is to raise doubts and to challenge the accuracy of the story.

DrJ doesn't do that.

He doesn't 'question' anything: he boldly announces that he knows what the real 'truth' is, citing a load of ludicrous bollocks found on the internet as his 'evidence'.

 

[Wess]

raisin...trying not to go on and on with this but I just wanted to refresh your memory on the fact that the quote you posted said that...
" The CIA photograph, shown on the left, clearly shows a tree full of ripe dates which in Iraq ripen in late July or early August and never in December."
Never in December...the author is implying that this cannot and never happens.

That has been proven to be wrong.

I know you didn't write it but you still presented in a way that was implying the author to be correct.
I think a lot of the problem here is that quite often things like this are posted up and stated as fact, when they are not...

Nothing wrong with being sceptical but if you are going to post something like that you can at least say something like "this is why I believe that it happened this way".
It's not wise to present something as fact or evidence when it is so obviously not.

 

[montevideo]

Originally posted by editor
I don't think you know what 'questioning' means.

To question something is to raise doubts and to challenge the accuracy of the story.

DrJ doesn't do that.

He doesn't 'question' anything: he boldly announces that he knows what the real 'truth' is, citing a load of ludicrous bollocks found on the internet as his 'evidence'.

To question the prevailing orthodoxy is to challenge the validity of what is being proposed as 'the truth' or 'the facts' by those who have the monopoly on the control & dissemination of information & communication tools.

Citing a load of ludicrous bollocks found on the interenet as 'evidence' is used often here. Dr jazzz to question the prevailing orthodoxy, others to reinforce the status quo. (An example being quoting the STARS & STRIPES website as a credible source, wouldn't you say?).

 

[editor]

Originally posted by montevideo
To question the prevailing orthodoxy is to challenge the validity of what is being proposed as 'the truth' or 'the facts' by those who have the monopoly on the control & dissemination of information & communication tools.

Bless.

You sound like you believe the obnoxious, ill-informed bullshit pouring out of Joe 'bullshit' Vialls' site too!

Or perhaps you agree with DrJ when he claimed that an untrained pooch 'proved' the complete innocence of the Soham mass murdering child killer?
YES/NO?

Or perhaps you believe that the mystical, untraceable, invisible retired expert posting on untraceable, invisible bulletin boards really existed too?
YES/NO?

Or perhaps you believe Vialls claimed qualifications?
YES/NO?

And seeing as you seem a bit obsessed with the Stars and Stripes site (which is, I'm sure, full of all manner of dodgy shite) perhaps you might point out the inaccuracies in the one single page I referenced?

Remember: I wasn't making any bold claims about grand conspiracies based on its info, neither was I proclaiming that I'd uncovered the 'real truth' that everyone else was too stupid to see. I was simply using it as one of many references - including a respected encyclopedia - to disprove the woefully clueless 'dates don't grow in December' claim.

Do you dispute that dates can grow in December?
YES/NO?

 

[montevideo]

Originally posted by editor

And seeing as you seem a bit obsessed with the Stars and Stripes site (which is, I'm sure, full of all manner of dodgy shite) perhaps you might point out the inaccuracies in the one single page I referenced?

No more so than your obessession with joe vialls.

To answer your questions:
-no
-his source maybe genuine, may not be.
-vialls qualifications could be invented. Equally they could be genuine.
-dates can grow at any time, so that's not in dispute. What is in dispute is specific dates ripening in a specific way at a specific time of the year in a specific geographical area.


Perhaps you could point out the inaccuracies in one single page raison referenced?


edited to answer the date question.

 

[editor]

Originally posted by montevideo
Perhaps you could point out the inaccuracies in one single page raison referenced?

Certainly. You could start with the one that claimed that dates couldn't possibly be seen in December in Iraq.

 

[montevideo]

Originally posted by editor
Certainly. You could start with the one that claimed that dates couldn't possibly be seen in December in Iraq.

Those type of dates don't ripen in iraq in december? Nobody has 'proved' anything to the contrary have they?