The Museum of Hoaxes
Saddam’s capture a propaganda hoax?
Posted By:
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
Mar 09, 2005
 http://www.wokr13.tv/news/national/story.aspx?content_id=422B960A-26BA-4891-9E60-21C8818788D4

Spark notes: Soldier says Saddam was captured in a modest house, with gun resistence, the day before the announced capture in a hole, which he says was actually a well.

Maybe the story isn't true, but it really isn't something I would put past the army.
Category: Military-Weapons; Replies: 38

Comments
Hairy Houdini
Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 | 06:52 PM
wow... wish I had posted that topic... So the story about Saddam's Hole Stinks, eh? sorry, Alex, I just had to
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 | 07:09 PM
If this story proves to be true, it's just one more bit of evidence that our current government rules by hoax and fraud.
Sharruma
Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 | 09:15 PM
Current Government??
Surely you mean all governments
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 | 02:43 AM
Sharruma said:

"Current Government??
Surely you mean all governments"

Well, I assume that pretty much every government lies, but our current one seems to have adopted deception as a sport.
dog
Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 | 06:42 AM
Using a little critical thinking, it seems to me that the easier story to fake is the new version, not the original.
JoeSixpack
Member
Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 | 07:08 AM
Frankly, I can't see the reason for faking the capture. The Army/US/current-administration would recieve no added propaganda benifit from one story over the other.

Secondly, there isn't much corraboration for this story. It's carried by Rev. Moons news agency, and it's just a report of what another news source is reporting about what one person is saying.
X
in McKinney, TX
 Member
Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 | 08:00 AM
I have come to realize that every thing the Government tells us is usually loosly based on a true story.
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 | 09:09 AM
I'm with Joe. No one has corraborated, and the information could easily be faked.

Only the soldier telling the story gains anything. (15 minutes of fame!)
The Curator
in San Diego
 Member
Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 | 09:14 AM
Either way, he's caught. And since he's still alive and could presumably tell his side of the story during a trial, there would have been no point in making up fake details about his capture.
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 | 01:34 PM
Good point, Alex. But I haven't heard many statements from Saddam, and I suspect they're tightly controlled, 'to prevent communication with terror cells,' they might say.

As for propaganda value, what looks better than forcing an ex-leader of the country you've conquered hide like a rat in a hole? Not that most leaders wouldn't demean themselves to save their own lives, but still it looks good when reported on.

But regardless of whether it's right or not, the fact remains that this story seems more plausable to the public, because more and more people don't trust it anymore. Remember the footage of the tank pulling down the Saddam statue? That was staged with about 200 Iraqis. Things like this make a lot of us lose trust in the government, and turn to non-government reports.
Hairy Houdini
Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 | 02:41 PM
I'm not ambitious enough to go back and check, but I do remember a couple of stories at the time of Saddam's arrest, that he was just in a basement or whatever. But, the Right seemed to jump on the thought of Saddam being in a "Spider Hole", and the scenario stuck. I doubt that the means of Saddam's arrest will be of much importance at his trial, but it is important if lies were put forth, not to confuse the enemy, but to mislead the public in whose name this stupid war was fought. Hoaxes intended to defraud people of money or lives are criminal, and somedamnbody should get some crap over this one.
supertaster
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 | 02:37 AM
I would have thought that capturing Saddam during a blazing gun battle would have far more propaganda value for the American government than pulling a tired, old man out of a tunnel.
Mike Z
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 | 05:20 AM
The "spider hole" and subsequent oral and lice exam were used by the US to make Saddam appear weak and humiliated, a cowardly fugitive. Found alone, in a hole without an escape route, he appears to be trapped. A "blazing gun battle" would have bolstered the perception of Saddam as a captured opposition leader.
Hairy Houdini
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 | 06:09 AM
What really gets me is the choice of the word "Spider" to describe the "Hole". Why not "Rat" hole? Or "Mole" hole? The propagandists must like spiders
Rod
in the land of smarties.
 Member
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 | 07:34 AM
From what I understand from a combination of too much reading and retention of too many useless facts, "spider hole" came about during the Vietman War.
The theory I tend to believe most was this. Before the war, there were "advisors" to the South Viets. These guys came from several different countries. In many of these countries, there are "trapdoor spiders". The spider hides under the camouflaged "door" it built from its web and surroundind vegetation, etc. until its prey gets close enough. Then it pops out, and WHAM, lunch. I guess they drew a parralel.

The Viet-Cong used this same procedure with tunnels covered with camouflage so well that these holes were never found unless they were pointed out by villagers or VC captured. The name "spider hole" stuck.

What this name has to do with some old unarmed fart down a well, I'm not entirely sure, maybe it just seemed a little more scary calling it a "spider hole" than "a well".

Or not.
Hairy Houdini
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 | 08:10 AM
I think the soldier's new account suggests that although there was an old well on the property, Saddam was not hiding in it. Improperganda
Hairy Houdini
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 | 08:17 AM
and, lest anyone think I'm sympathetic toward Saddam, well- I'm not. He's a wanker. But, I'd hate to see truth go down a spider-hole, y'now?
Tronic
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 | 08:22 AM
This should explain what really happened...

http://www.aztlan.net/husseincapturehoax.htm

http://www.wokr13.tv/news/national/story.aspx?content_id=422B960A-26BA-4891-9E60-21C8818788D4

I read these and think to myself, werent they after bin laden, wtf does saddam have to do with this?, and now they are in afghanistan killing civilians, for what????
Hairy Houdini
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 | 08:35 AM
Well, Tronic, the first article you link to suggest that Saddam was in CIA hands long before his "capture". That is a considerable stretch from saying he wasn't in a hole.
Hairy Houdini
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 | 08:37 AM
Let's see how this new account by the soldier plays out for a bit... again, it is all irrelevant to Saddam's trial, but I hate to be lied to...
JoeSixpack
Member
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 | 09:13 AM
Mike Z said;

" A "blazing gun battle" would have bolstered the perception of Saddam as a captured opposition leader."

That didn't prevent them from having a "blazing gun battle" with his sons, did it? And either way, he was captured alive with no wounds, wich pretty much implies that he didn't resist TOO much. Your theory (weak as it is)as to why the US might benefit by one story over the other isn't "evidence" by any streatch of the imagination. If the US wanted to stage the capture of Sadam for propiganda value, don't you think they could have invented an even more humiliating scenario? I know I could have.
nous
Member
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 | 12:32 PM
1st Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, and special operations forces of Task Force 121 made the capture. Army personel not Marines.

1.The person making the hoax claim is a former "marine".

2. He also claims a marine of African decent was killed during the raid. No record was found.

3. He states that Saddam was captured after a fierce battle. Look what happened to Saddams son after they resisted.

4. There were 600 soldiers involved in the capture and only one, an "ex-marine" living in Lebanon is making this claim.
dog
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 | 01:11 PM
No Marine I ever met would call himself an "ex-marine."
JoeSixpack
Member
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 | 01:20 PM
Yeah, dog, good point. LOL I've never met an ex-Marine. Even a pacifist former Marine I know won't refer to himself as an "ex".
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 | 03:47 PM
Well, if you're wondering about the propaganda value, turn to http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/14/sprj.irq.main/ 😊
Though I'm not so sure that it was actually staged now, I need more information either way.
But on another note, this staged kind of capture would prevent the pay out of the 25 million dollar reward to any marines.
But on another another note, the condition Saddam was in when he was captured made me see him even more as a human being.
taipei yankee
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 | 07:03 PM
This is the original HOAX story from the Saudi newspaper reffered to in the UPI piece posted earlier.

www,watchingamerica.com
Taipei Yankee
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 | 07:05 PM
One more try,

Here's the URL

This is the original HOAX story from the Saudi newspaper reffered to in the UPI piece posted earlier.

http://www.watchingamerica.com/almadina000001.html
Lucas Membrane
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 | 11:35 PM
What neither this story nor the official one explains well is the long growth of beard at the time of capture. I'll guess that someone other than the US captured him, put him in the hole, and tried to negotiate for the reward. Maybe the US paid it but got an agreement that the recipient would keep silent. Maybe they didn't pay it but just found him stuck there. The gun battle story doesn't have much of a ring of truth.
Brandon
Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 | 03:13 PM
Anyone who pays any attention to real (ie, non-American) news has known for months that the Kurds (and I mean THE Kurds, not just ONE Kurd) have said that they captured Saddam and turned him over to the US soldiers. As to the ex-Marine's story, who knows, it could be true or not, but I don't put anything past this government after the staged "Saving Private Lynch" fiasco. Again, anyone who reads/watches/listens to real news knows that SHE says that the government's story was complete garbage, which is why she went off the US News radar after returning home to the states. Turns out Rumsfeld has hired a PR firm to work with the Pentagon; any chance they dreamed up these scenarios?
Hairy Houdini
Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 | 04:05 PM
Saddam's beard could have been his attempt to blend in, but his hair would have drawn attention... The Kurds would love to say they caught him, they earned it
Hairy Houdini
Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 | 04:07 PM
Not counting the new soldier's account, I've always had the feeling that Saddam was in custody months before his "capture"... by whom? Well...
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 | 06:08 PM
Brandon said:

"Anyone who pays any attention to real (ie, non-American) news has known for months that the Kurds (and I mean THE Kurds, not just ONE Kurd) have said that they captured Saddam and turned him over to the US soldiers. As to the ex-Marine's story, who knows, it could be true or not, but I don't put anything past this government after the staged "Saving Private Lynch" fiasco. Again, anyone who reads/watches/listens to real news knows that SHE says that the government's story was complete garbage, which is why she went off the US News radar after returning home to the states. Turns out Rumsfeld has hired a PR firm to work with the Pentagon; any chance they dreamed up these scenarios?"

Absolutely correct, Brandon. No, we don't have proof that the "ex-Marine"'s version of the capture is accurate, but the Bush administration has lied about so many different things that it becomes believable that he is telling the truth.

It seems that America has collective amnesia when it comes to the Jessica Lynch story. Yes, she said herself that she wasn't wounded in a fire fight, unlike what the Pentagon claimed. Yes, they've hired a P.R. firm to make up stories about "how well" things are going in Iraq. No, none of this proves that the "ex-Marine" is telling the truth, but if those other things hadn't happened, his story wouldn't seem believable, I think.
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 | 02:17 AM
Yeah, my point was just that the b.s. that comes out of the bush administration makes this so believable.
Ashley Pomeroy
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 | 06:22 AM
This website here - albeit that it is a highly partisan source, as you can tell from the URL alone, and one which the Museum of Hoaxes has blacklists - does a neat job of debunking this tale:
http //theneocon blogspot com/
/2005/03/ex-marine-alleges-saddam-story-was.html

The salient points are, as mentioned above, (a) there weren't any marines in Iraq at that time, (b) the casuality roll doesn't mention the Sudanese marine who is supposedly killed, (c) the bloke who came up with the report probably wasn't a marine, or anything, and (d) it's balls.

Of course, all the rebutting points could be based on faked-up disinformation, but if you're willing to believe that everything which disagrees with your point of view is part of a government conspiracy, you're unreachable.
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 | 12:45 PM
You suck at linking 😊
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 | 12:50 PM
I don't know about taht "marine locator" he used. I searched for my cousin, who I know is in the navy, and found nothing. I suspect it's to be used for retired military dudes only.
Angie
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2005 | 10:08 PM
That locator that was used doesn't work to well... im in the Navy and I can't find any record of myself... hm... that's kinda sad:(
Gloria
Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 | 06:29 PM
:coolsmile:

Frankly, I believe the marine's story because
on December 21, a week after the "capture,"
reporter Yvonne Ridley wrote an article for the
UK Sunday Express in which she said that Saddam
had been captured a day before the capture was
made public, by the Kurds who apparently struck
a deal with the U.S. to give them credit. She
also said that he was NOT caught in a "spider
hole," but in a house outside of Tikrit. Yes,
I believe that it was a Psyops campaign meant to
break the spirit of the Iraqi resistence and to
propagandize the American brainwashed.
Saddam looked as if he had been doped-up and
his daughters in Europe swore that they thought
he looked doped-up also. The doctor was NOT
on the scene so he had to have been called in
later. Martha Raddatz of ABC said that the army
had the reporters trucked out to the site (so
it looks as if the army/marines/military made
sure that the scene was set before calling out
the reporters. Also, the hole looks like an
abandoned well. Because of Saddam's size, even
with the weight loss, it is highly unlikely that
he could have stayed down in a hole where he
would have been totally cramped up for very long
and Saddam has an enormous ego and would more
likely have gone down fighting.
The army faked the Saddam statue pull-down,
which they later admitted to, and if you find
the web site with the wide angle shot, you will
find Firdos Square surrounded by U.S. tanks and
about a hundred or less Iraqis!
It has recently come out that the army "faked
interrogations" at Guantanamo Bay for visiting
Congresspeople and Generals. They LIED to Pat
Tillman's parents who found out AFTER the military funeral that he was killed by "friendly
fire" ( a despicable term). The military LIED
about the shooting of the Italian journalist
and intelligence officer.
They LIE about everything, including who
all of the thousands of prisoners they have are,
including children. What makes you think that
they would tell the TRUTH in this instance???
Liars LIE and only the gullible believe a word
they have to say!

Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.