Comments
|
Page 2 of 2 pages < 1 2 |
JoeSixpack
Member
|
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 | 11:13 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 | 02:32 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
in VA
|
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 | 03:11 PM
No Marine I ever met would call himself an "ex-marine." |
JoeSixpack
Member
|
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 | 03:20 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 | 05:47 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 | 09:03 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 | 09:05 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
in Portland, OR
|
Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 | 01:35 AM
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 | 05:13 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 | 06:05 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 | 06:07 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 | 08:08 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 | 04:17 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 | 08:22 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 | 02:45 PM
You suck at linking |
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
Member
|
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 | 02:50 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: Thu Mar 24, 2005 | 12:08 AM
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
in USA
|
Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 | 07:29 PM
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! |
|
Page 2 of 2 pages < 1 2 |
In order to post comments you have to register as a member of the site. We were forced to restrict commenting because spammers were flooding the comment form with spam and crashing the server.
|
Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.
|
