[brian1175]

<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.rense.com">www.rense.com</a><!-- w -->

[VioletlightHeron]

It isn't a new suggestion.

The Kurdish press announced that Saddam had been captured a day or two before the US announced it had captured him. This story was covered at the time, mostly by European newspapers.

The story at that time was that Saddam was actually captured by a Kurdish/Iraqi special forces unit that had the advantage of being able to speak the language and win the trust of sources. After he was captured, he was supposedly held briefly and then placed in the underground bunker so the US forces could "capture" him.

Note that these two stories are fundamentally similar: both have Saddam being captured by special units made up of Arabic-speaking soldiers, and both have a subsequent "capture" being staged for the cameras. But does that mean that this story is actually based on the other one?

It's not the first time US forces have been accused of staging a major event for the cameras. The rescue of Pte. Lynch was, according to some, staged. Iraqi forces had supposedly left the area and there was no resistance, and the team that rescued her was supposedly guided to her room by Iraqi doctors.

Are these stories credible? Well, they're unproven, but there's evidence for them. And there's no doubt that the US government is aware of the importance of PR and is willing to lie to the public.

Remember the story of the Kuwaiti incubator babies from Gulf War I? Completely fabricated, the "witness" actually being the daughter of a Kuwaiti diplomat who was given a script and coached by a PR firm working for the administration. A PR firm that employed a woman named Victoria Clarke, who of course became the Pentagon flack for Gulf War II.

We'll never know what the truth is, but our grandchildren might.

One has to wonder why the U.S. government wouldn't trumpet the capture of Saddam by a joint Iraqi/Kurdish force. That would be gonzo for the moral of Iraqi forces and make it seem like U.S. forces are just helping the Iraqi forces. I don't know what this guy's deal is but I don't buy either story.

[skippy the wonder dog]

One has to wonder why the U.S. government wouldn't trumpet the capture of Saddam by a joint Iraqi/Kurdish force....

Indeed. Why did they contradict the claims made by their allies? That's what actually happened.

At the time, much was made of how it was "a major coup for Washington's beleaguered occupation force in Iraq" (Reuters). Meanwhile, AFP reported that "arabs shared little of the world's joy over Saddam Hussein's capture, with many bitter over another victory for an "arrogant" pro-Israeli United States."

It's not too difficult to come up with hypotheses here. But hypotheses about motives are not evidence for or against anything.

Here are a couple of the original stories:
http://www.sundayherald.com/38816
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/1...click=true
http://www.sundayherald.com/39096
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A...933275.htm

The "conspiracy theory" surrounding Pte Lynch received coverage in US media, as well as in Europe. A critical read suggests that the US military was happy to let people assume the rescue was more dramatic than it actually was, until some pesky questions arose:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/2...6060.shtml
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2...55,00.html
http://washingtontimes.com/national/2003...-9940r.htm

and....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Lynch

What about them Kuwaiti incubator babies? HBO smarmily admits that the story "was never substantiated" while posting the evidence that it was, in fact, false:
http://www.hbo.com/films/livefrombaghdad/related.shtml
Not surprisingly, the flacks denied coaching the witness to lie to Congress. I mean, that would be a felony:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/1225
Phillip Knightley is the author of "The First Casualty," a well-respected history of war reporting, but apparently he's a conspiracy theorist, too:
http://www.phillipknightley.com/articles...41001.html

But I made one oops: Victoria Clarke didn't join Hill & Knowlton until long after the incubator babies fiasco:
http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/tclarke_bio.html

Anyway, remember: the really important thing is to decide what you want to believe, and then reject all the evidence you don't like.

[skippy the wonder dog]

Also of note, for the googlishly inclined, neither of the two reported US casualties for 12 Dec 2003 would appear, from their photos, to be of Somali descent.

This casts doubt on the truth of this new account, presuming that the death was immediate, as implied, and presuming that the soldier was not a member of a special forces unit for which casualties might go unreported.

[Dilly_sAm]

Betcha won't see this story on FOX

Maybe that's because its bogus. Ever think of that? Hell, if CNN (Communist News Network) won't jump all over a story like this, then you know it's absurd.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/

The frequency and fervor with which some of you people buy into these anti-Bush, anti-US military, and US gov't. conspiracy stories really makes you look ridiculous. It's as if you can barely contain your jealously, bitterness, insecurity, paranoia, or feelings of inferiority, whichever is responsible for this rabble-rousing.

And you wonder why US media pokes so much fun at everything Canadian?

:roll:

While the story is fairly dubious, an inference by a soldier in the Canadian military that the government had lied to its population would certainly have made the CBC, not because we've got nothing better to talk about, but because we are a country who likes to hear both sides of the story, not just the one fed to us by the feds (pardon the pun). Both FOX (fair and balanced like hell) and CNN (communist? glad to see you've gotten over McCarthyism!) are both so far to the right and in the pockets of the GOP it makes me sick. The ratio of conservatives to liberals appearing on both networks is about 4 to 1. I digress. Rupert Murdoch admits and celebrates this!
Futhermore, your statement that we Canadians are jealous, bitter, insecure, paranoid or feel we are inferior is not only insulting, it is obvious poppycock. What would we be jealous of? Our political system works, everyone in the country has health care, our national debt isn't rocketing skywards, and someone isn't shot every half hour in our country. We aren't the ones who are attempting to create a "missile shield" to protect ourselves from a threat that doesn't exist. The terrorists that ruined your shiz a few septembers ago weren't riding missiles, they were using your own planes. We aren't insecure, because we know that we aren't hated by most of the other countries on the planet.
This isn't rabble-rousing, its the truth. I feel I speak for most Canadians when we say we are fed up of your softwood lumber tariff imposing, salmon stealing, attempting to block our coal mining behaviour! Your ambassador and your president treat us like we're your backwater cousins, and act all surprised when we don't jump on board with one of your stupid ideas like the Iraq charade or Star Wars game. We are anti-Bush, and anti-US military. What can you expect when the former tries to strong arm us into things and the latter drops bombs on us?

[The Darkest Canuck]

yeah, if you think that CNN is communist, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.


PS: we want the NHL back too :rambo:!

[VioletlightHeron]

While the story is fairly dubious, an inference by a soldier in the Canadian military that the government had lied to its population would certainly have made the CBC, not because we've got nothing better to talk about, but because we are a country who likes to hear both sides of the story, not just the one fed to us by the feds (pardon the pun). Both FOX (fair and balanced like hell) and CNN (communist? glad to see you've gotten over McCarthyism!) are both so far to the right and in the pockets of the GOP it makes me sick. The ratio of conservatives to liberals appearing on both networks is about 4 to 1. I digress. Rupert Murdoch admits and celebrates this!
Futhermore, your statement that we Canadians are jealous, bitter, insecure, paranoid or feel we are inferior is not only insulting, it is obvious poppycock. What would we be jealous of? Our political system works, everyone in the country has health care, our national debt isn't rocketing skywards, and someone isn't shot every half hour in our country. We aren't the ones who are attempting to create a "missile shield" to protect ourselves from a threat that doesn't exist. The terrorists that ruined your shiz a few septembers ago weren't riding missiles, they were using your own planes. We aren't insecure, because we know that we aren't hated by most of the other countries on the planet.
This isn't rabble-rousing, its the truth. I feel I speak for most Canadians when we say we are fed up of your softwood lumber tariff imposing, salmon stealing, attempting to block our coal mining behaviour! Your ambassador and your president treat us like we're your backwater cousins, and act all surprised when we don't jump on board with one of your stupid ideas like the Iraq charade or Star Wars game. We are anti-Bush, and anti-US military. What can you expect when the former tries to strong arm us into things and the latter drops bombs on us?

Pardon my French, but where the hell do you get off saying the US military purposely drops bombs on Canada? You know perfectly well the incident in Afghanistan was an accident. The pilot, his RIO and the air traffic controller were punished for their mistakes. Now I love and respect Canadians, but I think some like yourself have a huge chip on your shoulder when it comes to your southern neighbor. We wouldnt be imposing softwood lumber tariffs if your government didnt prop it up with hidden subsidies, like Europe does with Airbus. I had a huge laugh when Mr. Dithers stated that he expected to be "consulted" if and when a ballistic missile was heading for the United States and we launched a response across Canadian airspace. The only reason Mr. Dithers rejected signing on to the ABM Pact because he was pandering to anti-American voters in Quebec! Talk about a stand of principle :roll: And don't get me started on Jean Chretien. He makes Nelson Chamberlain seem like a clean-cut politician with a spine :roll:

[The Darkest Canuck]

At least Chretien's not war monger, half retarded, silver spoon fed daddy's boy that resembles a monkey, trading blood for oil. So he's corrupt, welcome to politics, at least he never sold us out to the U.S., you want to talk about spine? HE STOOD UP TO BUSH AND HIS STUPID WAR IN IRAQ AND SAID "NO, WE'RE NOT PARTICIPATING", at a time when countries like Britain and Australia were bending over and taking it like bitches from Bush. Blair's had his nose so far his cousin's ass for the past 3 years that you can't even tell where Bush ends and he begins.

[VioletlightHeron]

No offense, but I'd love to see Chretien's or Mr. Dithers vaunted "soft power" actually change anything in the Middle East. Yes, the US has no compunction about using military force when necessary. If we were still doing things the old-fashioned European way we'd be still selling military arms to Arab dictators, pleading with them in diplomatic circle-jerks to liberalize their political and economic structure while hoping OPEC didnt raise their prices on oil so they can fatten their Swiss bank accounts.

[thipfan73]

At least Chretien's not war monger, half retarded, silver spoon fed daddy's boy that resembles a monkey, trading blood for oil. So he's corrupt, welcome to politics, at least he never sold us out to the U.S., you want to talk about spine? HE STOOD UP TO BUSH AND HIS STUPID WAR IN IRAQ AND SAID "NO, WE'RE NOT PARTICIPATING", at a time when countries like Britain and Australia were bending over and taking it like bitches from Bush. Blair's had his nose so far his cousin's ass for the past 3 years that you can't even tell where Bush ends and he begins.

Hey, I DIDN'T VOTE FOR HIM! :lol:

[j-monster]

Futhermore, your statement that we Canadians are jealous, bitter, insecure, paranoid or feel we are inferior is not only insulting, it is obvious poppycock. What would we be jealous of? Our political system works, everyone in the country has health care, our national debt isn't rocketing skywards, and someone isn't shot every half hour in our country. We aren't the ones who are attempting to create a "missile shield" to protect ourselves from a threat that doesn't exist. The terrorists that ruined your shiz a few septembers ago weren't riding missiles, they were using your own planes. We aren't insecure, because we know that we aren't hated by most of the other countries on the planet.
This isn't rabble-rousing, its the truth. I feel I speak for most Canadians when we say we are fed up of your softwood lumber tariff imposing, salmon stealing, attempting to block our coal mining behaviour! Your ambassador and your president treat us like we're your backwater cousins, and act all surprised when we don't jump on board with one of your stupid ideas like the Iraq charade or Star Wars game. We are anti-Bush, and anti-US military. What can you expect when the former tries to strong arm us into things and the latter drops bombs on us?

You don't speak for this Canadian.

This Canadian may not agree with everything that Bush and the Americans do, but he doesn't spew mindless bile against them. He realizes that the Americans are still our best allies, but he is embarrassed by the way his country's political leaders promise to help the Americans only to screw them at the last minute by retracting their promise. This Canadian does not trivialize America's greatest tragedy by saying the terrorists "ruined their shiz". Furthermore, this Canadian notices that the Iraq "charade" has led to the seeds of democracy being planted in the Middle East, which could help bring freedom to the region and rid the world of a significant source of terrorism.

So I say again... you don't speak for this Canadian, and I humbly suggest that many other Canadians share my viewpoint, maybe as many as share yours.

[The Darkest Canuck]

things have been the way they are in the middle east for thousands of years...what makes you think it's your nation's place to be running around corruptly policing the globe and sticking its nose where it doesn't belong? sure, there's democracy in Iraq, but how long is that gonna last? until the US withdraw their troops?

[Dilly_sAm]

No offense, but I'd love to see Chretien's or Mr. Dithers vaunted "soft power" actually change anything in the Middle East. Yes, the US has no compunction about using military force when necessary. If we were still doing things the old-fashioned European way we'd be still selling military arms to Arab dictators, pleading with them in diplomatic circle-jerks to liberalize their political and economic structure while hoping OPEC didnt raise their prices on oil so they can fatten their Swiss bank accounts.

An GW's "hard power" is gonna change things? Seems to me it's just messed it up more.
I'm also pretty sure it was the US who propped up Saddam Hussein and fed them weapons during the Iran-Iraq war.
And I'm also pretty sure that the US relies on Middle-Eastern oil. And that Saudi Arabia is the number one source of foreign capital in the US.
Chip on the shoulder? How about Paul Celluci (US ambassador to Canada) attempting to dictate our foreign policy to us, then making weak threats when we tell him to cram it.

Furthermore, this Canadian notices that the Iraq "charade" has led to the seeds of democracy being planted in the Middle East, which could help bring freedom to the region and rid the world of a significant source of terrorism.

While I would like to agree that the seeds of democracy have been planted in Iraq, I fear the only seeds that have germinated are those of hatred and terror. It is impossible to believe that Iraq was a source of terrorism, being that it was a secular nation, and that Saddam Hussein abhorred fundamentalism, crushing (brutally, I am no ally of his) at every oppurtunity. Most of the 9/11 terrorists were Egyptian and Saudi Arabian, why didn't the US invade those countries?

[prz]

things have been the way they are in the middle east for thousands of years...what makes you think it's your nation's place to be running around corruptly policing the globe and sticking its nose where it doesn't belong? sure, there's democracy in Iraq, but how long is that gonna last? until the US withdraw their troops?

Hmm, Well lets look back in history. Then we can use Japan and Geramny for examples how long democracy lasts after the US troops leave. Thanks for coming out... :thumb:

[Dilly_sAm]

things have been the way they are in the middle east for thousands of years...what makes you think it's your nation's place to be running around corruptly policing the globe and sticking its nose where it doesn't belong? sure, there's democracy in Iraq, but how long is that gonna last? until the US withdraw their troops?

Hmm, Well lets look back in history. Then we can use Japan and Geramny for examples how long democracy lasts after the US troops leave. Thanks for coming out... :thumb:

Uhh....Japan is still democratic and most of Germany was, and what was Communist is now democratic....
cratch: