|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 140 responses total. |
scott
|
|
response 38 of 140:
| 
Dec 15 14:25 UTC 2003 |
Hmm... Bush secretly flies into Baghdad just a few days before Saddam is
finally captured... maybe it's time for a conspiracy item?
|
twenex
|
|
response 39 of 140:
|
Dec 15 14:35 UTC 2003 |
Agora *is* the conspiracy item.
|
bru
|
|
response 40 of 140:
|
Dec 15 14:54 UTC 2003 |
"27 of 39: by Siddhartha Jain (sj2) on Mon, Dec 15, 2003 (00:21):
Re #24, you are forgetting the half-a-million or so Iraqi
children who died for the lack of food and medicines during a decade
of sanctions. It is appalling, how the international community can
demonize Saddam for it and not take any blame for that??!!"
Well, do you think you could try and blame Saddam Hussein, who spent millions
of dollars building palaces adn buying the loyalty of his batthist party adn
the army rather than buying food to feed and medicine to cure these children?
|
sj2
|
|
response 41 of 140:
|
Dec 15 16:29 UTC 2003 |
"It is appalling, how the international community can
demonize Saddam for it and not take any blame for that??!!"
Implies that Saddam is definitely to blame but so are the countries
that supported the crippling sanctions.
And you conveniently skipped the BIG issue of DU shells!!
|
gull
|
|
response 42 of 140:
|
Dec 15 17:07 UTC 2003 |
Re resp:19: I'm just hoping they call Rumsfeld as a witness. After all,
he used to be Saddam's buddy. ;>
Re resp:25: I never believed that conspiracy theory about Saddam, or the
parallel one about Osama. Too many people would have to know about it
for it to stay secret for long.
Re resp:41: I think, given all the known cancer-causing petroleum
byproducts that were strewn over Iraq when the Kuwaiti oil wells were
set on fire, it's a stretch to conclude that an increase in cancer rate
is due to depleted uranium.
|
lk
|
|
response 43 of 140:
|
Dec 16 00:14 UTC 2003 |
For a potential link between Saddam/Iraq and Osama/AlQauida, see:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml
&sSheet=/portal/2003/12/14/ixportaltop.html
|
russ
|
|
response 44 of 140:
|
Dec 16 04:25 UTC 2003 |
On Saddam's capture and what it means:
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/13422.htm
Several extremely insightful (and LONG) posts on related issues:
http://www.denbeste.nu/
Did you read about the anti-terrorist, anti-Baathist demonstration
in Baghdad? No? Probably because the liberal media didn't think
it was news. But thanks to independent media you can see it anyway:
http://www.donaldsensing.com/2003_12_01_archive.html#107109864088011111
And someone who seems to have read Scott's mind:
http://www.americandigest.org/mt-archives/000749.html
|
sj2
|
|
response 45 of 140:
|
Dec 16 09:04 UTC 2003 |
There was Saddam-got-captured celebrations. There were saddam-got-
captured protests (though, definitely smaller is number). Half of the
Arab world celebrated the capture of a tyrant and the other half was
humiliated by the capture of an Arab hero who stood against the Jews
and Americans.
There were communistst waving flags in the streets of Baghdad. There
were religious political parties waving.
Al-Jazeera shows a cartoon of Uncle Sam hoisting Saddam first, then
pulling him down and then arresting him. Fox reports nothing about the
blasts in Baghdad or US Army blowing kids to bits in Afghanistan.
Saddam's sister accused that he had been drugged before capture. An
american soldier said Saddam wanted to *negotiate* the capture.
Rumsfeld sneered that Saddam didn't even fire his pistol and
surrendered meekly.
Saddam himself cooperated after the arrest and for the medical
examination. But thereafter is reported to be spouting anger and
abuse. He is reported to be defiant and showing no remorse.
Blair could be seen on a definite high in the British parliament -
attacking the opposition and shouting loudly.
The Sanchez guy in Baghdad was grinning ear-to-ear all the time. There
were more blasts in Baghdad meanwhile killing more people.
So and so forth.
|
lk
|
|
response 46 of 140:
|
Dec 16 11:47 UTC 2003 |
There are rumors that Lebanese terror mastermind Imad Mughniyeh has
arrived in Iraq to boot anti-US violence. For those not familiar with
the name, this is the person who according to some terrorism experts
made Osama bin Laden look like small potatoes.
I've also seen an analysis that Saddam was being held captive in the
mother of all spider pits, his captors negotiating for the $25M bounty.
It is unclear if he was snatched away from them or if this was part
of the bargain. [That he was allowed to keep his handgun seems to
contradict this, but perhaps he hadn't realized his friends had turned
on him.]
|
gull
|
|
response 47 of 140:
|
Dec 16 14:48 UTC 2003 |
Re resp:44: Actually, I heard about the anti-Saddam celebrations. On
liberal NPR, no less!
(Do you actually ever watch/listen to/read any of the "liberal media",
or do you just make assumptions based on what you think their bias is?
Also, by what stretch of the imagination is Fox News "independent"?)
Incidentally, have you noticed that the reaction of Iraqis to pretty
much anything seems to be to fire guns into the air? During the same
newscast yesterday I heard about one incident of them firing into the
air in celebration, and another of them firing into the air in mourning.
That country is like the NRA's wet dream. ;>
|
twenex
|
|
response 48 of 140:
|
Dec 16 15:23 UTC 2003 |
LOL.
|
sj2
|
|
response 49 of 140:
|
Dec 16 16:41 UTC 2003 |
And BBC News is liberal?? How about CNN?
Hehehe ... I don't know if this is true ... but still thought it was
worth posting.
From http://www.moderateindependent.com/v1i3mediawatch.htm
MAY 15, 2003 MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA Taking on those Democrats and
others who are unpatriotic , Australian-owned Fox News, USA Today, NY
Post, Chicago Sun Times, and numerous other Aussie-controlled news
operations promise to clear things up by presenting the true, American
view of things.
Rupert Murdoch, owner of all the above listed news sources and many,
many more helped explain his Americanizing mission from his
original home town of Melbourne, Australia.
As someone who was born in Australia, said Rupert Murdoch, speaking
beside a barbie on which he was throwing another shrimp, and who is
married to a woman who is from China, I feel that I and my Australian-
owned news sources are the most qualified to present the true American
perspective on things. Those other, American-owned news sources, like
the New York Times and NPR, simply don t know anything about being a
good American. They betray American values on a daily basis, as far as
I can tell from down here on the other side of the world, where I was
born and all my family live.
The American flag a permanent fixture on the screen of his Fox News
Network, Murdoch sits stroking his pet koala, eating some Vegamite,
pointing out a kangaroo in the distance. Of course my news sources
are the real American ones. How could some paper owned by New Yorkers
be more patriotic than the ones owned by me? Or a radio network funded
by donations from American listeners? No, no, no. I know the true
voice of America, like no American possibly could if I didn t spell it
out for them on a daily basis.
Throughout the interview, his love and respect for his wife Wendy Deng
Murdoch was very much apparent. Any time I have some doubts about
whether I since I am not from America am striking the right
American note, I ask Wendy, who is also from the other side of the
world. Between my Down-Under upbringing and her Red China view of
things, we come up with the real American perspective like no actual
American possibly could.
|
slynne
|
|
response 50 of 140:
|
Dec 16 16:54 UTC 2003 |
Hahaha, that is funny :)
|
twenex
|
|
response 51 of 140:
|
Dec 16 17:39 UTC 2003 |
The BBC is independent.
|
sj2
|
|
response 52 of 140:
|
Dec 16 19:24 UTC 2003 |
"And BBC News is liberal?? How about CNN?"
Sorry, forgot to add the <sarcasm> tags there!! :)
|
scg
|
|
response 53 of 140:
|
Dec 16 19:58 UTC 2003 |
If there's a lesson to be learned from Saddam's request to negotiate, it's
that in any negotiations it helps to have something to negotiate with.
Assuming he was really stuck at the bottom of a hole with a bunch of big guns
pointed at him, he was a little late.
Then again, it may have been more a case of, "I want to talk, not shoot, so
please don't shoot me," which sounds quite reasonable.
I'm rather disgusted by all the calls for killing him now. He's certainly
not somebody I feel strongly about keeping alive, but what would we gain by
killing him, other than a morbid spectacle.
|
slynne
|
|
response 54 of 140:
|
Dec 16 20:24 UTC 2003 |
I dont think there is a lot to be gained from killing him either. And
yet, I cant bring myself to feel sorry for him even though I know that
is likely to be the outcome of all of this.
|
jep
|
|
response 55 of 140:
|
Dec 16 20:38 UTC 2003 |
I don't think he'll be executed. There's too much information wanted
by the government that he has.
I did read an article in the AA News, broadly hinting that pain,
discomfort, refusing trips to the bathroom, etc. could be used on Iraqi
military leaders, possibly including Saddam Hussein. The headline
stated something about heads of state being immune to such treatment,
but the body of the article only suggested it was possible he'd be
treated more respectfully.
|
scott
|
|
response 56 of 140:
|
Dec 16 20:49 UTC 2003 |
After Bush and others using the torture angle to further demonize Saddam, like
mentioning specific torture techniques in major speeches (I've seen Bush do
this), it would be rather cynical of America to then condone torture in some
cases.
|
tod
|
|
response 57 of 140:
|
Dec 16 22:43 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 58 of 140:
|
Dec 17 03:12 UTC 2003 |
Re #44: The anti-Saddam demonstrations are no secret. The subtle point,
that's going to become less subtle now, is that the people who are
demonstrating against Saddam don't actually want us around either.
Some of them have used violence against the Baathists, and will be
happy to use it against us, too -- and I'm not just talking about
radical Moslems, because a lot of Iraqis are strong secular
nationalists.
|
klg
|
|
response 59 of 140:
|
Dec 17 03:28 UTC 2003 |
(Yeah, right. They were happier with the good old days of being
kidnapped, tortured, & killed. Who wouldn't be?)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 60 of 140:
|
Dec 17 04:42 UTC 2003 |
re #59: that's not at all what he said. it's clear that you don't
believe it either. so why bother to write crap like that?
|
fitz
|
|
response 61 of 140:
|
Dec 17 07:32 UTC 2003 |
Hooray for the capture of Saddam.
His detainment will make the world as safe from terrorism as
the arrest of Noriega stopped the drug problem.
You're safe, Momma. You're safe, baby.
|
sj2
|
|
response 62 of 140:
|
Dec 17 07:58 UTC 2003 |
Re #53, I think what Saddam meant by *negotiating*, when he asked a US
soldier for it, was whether somehow he could pay something to the
soldiers and get away. Because, at that point of time, there was
nothing else to negotiate. Remember, he had US$750,000 with him on
person and maybe more elsewhere. They even found ~US$650 million in a
hut in the middle of nowhere, earlier.
He might have thought that kind of money may buy him freedom.
|