Who captured Saddam? (966 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0.77 on 19 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Nobb (View user info) at 2003-12-27 00:34:40 EST
Anyone else heard about this?
http://www.correspondences.org/archives/000507.html
"Well, the cat is out of the bag so to speak. Saddam Hussein was captured by Kurds, not US forces. Here is the story as best I can determine by looking through a number of articles (see full list at end of this post).
Hussein was betrayed to the Kurds by a member of the al-Jabour tribe because Hussein's son Uday had raped a daughter of the tribe. Saddam had previously paid 7 million pounds in blood money to the tribe with the warning that he would wipe out the entire tribe if it ever came out. (Sify report)
He was then handed over to the Kurdish Patriotic Front who negotiated a deal with US forces for political power before drugging and abandoning Hussein for pickup. Ultimately he ended up in the hands of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) led by Jalal Talabani (Aljazeera)
Hussein could not escape the hole in which he was recovered because the entrance had been sealed."
I apologise sincerly if this has already been posted, i've been somewhat without a computer lately and have been busy with other things so haven't been keeping up with my uber.
User Reviews
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-03-29 01:01:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Fuck nuking, Freight.
Submitted by Freight_Train (user info) at 2005-03-29 00:18:14 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by smokymtcsw (user info) at 2004-03-26 09:43:20 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Why would you argue with squattail on my post?
Submitted by Falco (user info) at 2004-03-25 06:11:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 fuck yo couch nigga
Submitted by Slopster53 (user info) at 2003-12-29 14:22:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Don't believe it, had he been captured by Kurds he'd be dead. Plain and simple. +2 for the alternative look though.
Submitted by IndianOcean (user info) at 2003-12-27 19:12:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Great post and
Submitted by CobraCommander (user info) at 2003-12-27 18:24:08 (#)
Ranking: 1
great reply by Cobra too.
+500 points.
Submitted by CobraCommander (user info) at 2003-12-27 18:24:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Well, yeah, 'we got him' is true, despite the fact that he was handed over to us with a big red bow shoved up his ass and an apple in his mouth. We may not have originally found him, but we've got him now. This is the way the US has fought wars since WW2 -- supplementing our fighting power with that of dissident factions that happen to share a common goal; in this case, getting Saddam. That's why we have Army Special Forces, green berets don't fight so much as assist these dissidents. These dissident factions are also the single best source of intelligence that we have. They give us the information, but it doesn't become intelligence until the MI folks break it down and figure 1) what it means and 2) what to do with it.
The Kurds wanted political power, we wanted Saddam. They give us what we want, we give them what they want. So yeah, 'we got him' because if it wasn't for us then he'd be underground somewhere with 2 bulletholes in his head and nobody would have him. Who else were the Kurds going to turn him over to if they weren't going to turn him over to us?? We're the only reason the bastard is alive right now, not that he deserves to be. People make a big deal now about a reaction against us should we execute him, imagine what would happen if he was strung up on a pole out in front of a village.
So yeah, people are going to think that we caught him singlehandedly. They're wrong of course, a more appropriate headline would be that we essentially bought him off of the Kurds. Of course, it may not have been in the Kurds best interests to let this get out in the first place; as we can see from Baghdad, loyalists are still out there shooting people up, and now the Kurds are going to have to deal with them now that they've accepted credit for it.
Good stuff.
Submitted by Acarnis (user info) at 2003-12-27 17:41:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Didn't Saddam order the deaths of his daughters' husbands around 1997?
Submitted by Nobb (user info) at 2003-12-27 16:56:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Errr, Dave, or should I call you retard. If the average American thinks Saddam had ties with Osama Bin Laden, and that there were Afghans on the planes in 9/11, what chance do they stand to figure out that everything that was on the news was incredibly slanted towards it being an all American capture? Little or none, you can hate all you want, people are still fucking stupid and without liberals they are just cattle to be hearded by the rich.
Submitted by The Ref at 2003-12-27 10:39:37 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
are you all out there so dense as too think that americans did this on their own in the first place? Where do you think the "brilliant" intelligence came from? You dipshits are throwing old news into the headlines. this shit won't sell because everyone already knows it. Sure, we made it look like that amercans only captured him with only small mention of help. So fucking what!! The common amercan man or woman sitting in arkansas or chicago or wherever knows we had help. who the fuck cares how it went down? get of this old horse folks.
-thedavehatesignorantliberalsandtom
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2003-12-27 08:49:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
What GodChicken said, in the meantime here's a +2 just in case this is true.
Submitted by kgbpasha (user info) at 2003-12-27 03:48:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I was under the impression that Bush himself had yanked him out of
a hole and then had him checked for fleas after Saddam admitted to
being behind the attacks on 9-11.
So it's not true?
How can this be?
Submitted by Tom (user info) at 2003-12-27 02:55:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
In response to Bart.
Anyone would be astounded to know that Saddam Hussein <gasp> hadn't ordered the deaths of anyone since after Desert Storm. So, where were we for the, oh, 12 years in between there? As far as Iraq was concerned, it wasn't an unbearable place to live, and it's clear to me currently that they were heading toward democracy. We have most likely slowed the inevitable. It's sad really, they will not become a democracy after we leave by, oh, 2006 or so (if ever).
No number of bombs can alter the way Muslims have been living from Spain to Pakistan. They have been like this since before America was even discovered. You can destroy the infrastructure of the countries if you like. You can produce sanctions on them, but they will only change in a given amount of time.
In other words, this war was a waste of my time and your tax money.
Submitted by beer-turtle (user info) at 2003-12-27 02:12:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
this didn't surprise me in the slightest.
once I realized that politics is more a popularity contest for voter approval than anything else.
Western media says what it is told to say by the people that let them broadcast.
-Turtle
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2003-12-27 01:13:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Yeah, here's another version of it that was on Yahoo news the other day:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=1514&u=/afp/iraq_saddam_britain&printer=1
Trying to explain something like this to the general American public will be too complicated. Most people think Iraq was responsible for 9/11.
Submitted by Ingsoc (user info) at 2003-12-27 01:07:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by GodChicken (user info) at 2003-12-27 00:57:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Interesting. I'll look into this monday through my own sources.
Submitted by WeAre138 (user info) at 2003-12-27 00:55:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
This would be a real kick in the balls to Bush if someone brought it up around election time. "Oh, what's this? 'We got him' my balls."
Submitted by bargled (user info) at 2003-12-27 00:37:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
And you'll never hear it on CNN, ABC, CBS, or FOX.