It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Another Letter from Saddam Hussein to the American People

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   
P.S I have a paper copy; and it’s an open letter and am allowed to quote extensively from it without violating copyright. However his Excellencies letter can also be found at this source… www.albasrah.net...

From This Link…
“Letter from Saddam to the American People 7th July 2006
www.albasrah.net.../en_articles_2006/0706/president-saddam_190706.htm


All Quotes: Originally posted by Saddam Hussein

I address you with this letter of mine in the hope that it will reach you and that you will hear it or read it. And on the basis of my responsibility to bring the facts before people, whatever their color or nationality, for that is our duty to them, just as they have a duty to us not to accept evil.



the “democracy” of your leaders has prevented me since my arrest and until now from getting newspapers and magazines or hearing radio and television and has isolated me from the world and has isolated the world from me so that I might not hear or see anything from outside my place of confinement.



People of America, it still seems to me that the officials in your government are still lying to you and are not giving you true explanations of the reasons that led them to embark on their aggression against Iraq. In what they have said about the reasons they have deceived, from the starting point, not only the international community, and in particular the European Community but also the peoples of America themselves, knowing beforehand that the facts were contrary to what they were declaring. Untrue is what they said, after their lies were exposed, about having been deceived by their intelligence agencies and by the stooges that they brought along to serve as their puppets in Iraq, just as old imperialism and the old empires of the 19th and 20th centuries used to do. What we are saying is based on many facts, the major ones being as follows:
1. The inspection teams – that came to Iraq in the name of the United Nations and carried out searches even of some private houses as well as government departments, presidential palaces and government documents – those teams knew that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction because most of the leading members in those teams were Americans and British and in addition they had spies and volunteers of other nationalities. Those teams searched Iraq piece by piece from one end to the other and never found any information contrary to what they and others were told by Iraqi government representatives. The inspections lasted for more than seven years. And in addition to the teams that traveled by car and on foot, they used spy planes, helicopters, and satellites in space. The American and English officials thought that this was their historic chance to strike Iraq and destroy its legitimate aspirations and the lofty cultural and scientific achievements made in the course of 35 years, making use of the information gathered by their spies in the inspection teams and making use of the so-called war on terror after the 11 September incident that struck America. They shuffled the cards to bring up the goals that they had already decided upon earlier, and these were not the goals that they publicly announced at the starting line.

It was their assessment that the unjust embargo had not destroyed Iraq’s will nor halted its legitimate aspirations to develop economically, culturally, scientifically, and as a civilization in the conditions of a new independence. They believed that Iraq had come close at that time to breaking the economic embargo as the result of the cooperation of those who cooperated with Iraq on the basis of mutual benefit and fraternal national feelings as far as the Arabs were concerned. The officials in your country thought that this was their chance to impose their will on the world by means of their control of the Middle East’s oil and its production and marketing in new ways and for new goals – those about which we spoke in and before the year 2003 – in addition to attaining one of their Zionist goals and winning support in the election. Iran and its lackeys played a dirty role in making aggression appear attractive and in facilitating its implementation.

2. The American officials did not withdraw from Iraq after they became hard pressed, but declared that the facts were contrary to what they had claimed before the invasion that took place in March and April of the year 2003. If they had been truthful when they claimed that they had been deceived as a result of the information they had been given and which they used as the cover for their invasion, and which they declared at the time was sufficient justification for the invasion – declaring at the time that it involved things that they said affected the security of the United States – then they would have withdrawn from Iraq after discovering that that information had been false. They would have apologized to the heroic Iraqi people, to the American people and to the people of the world for what they had done.


The Most Interesting Quote?

None of the Americans asked their government before the war how Iraq, a country that had still not emerged from backwardness, could threaten the security of a country like America across the Atlantic. And for that matter why would Iraq want to threaten America, which at that time had not violated the territory of Iraq. If the American officials wanted to promote the claim that Iraq’s threat was precisely involved in the opposing stances taken by Iraq and America over the Zionist occupation of the land of Palestine and other Arab land, it could be said that Iraq is not the only state that takes an opposing stance to that of America in regards to the issue, whether that be Arab states or other states in the world. Furthermore, who has authorized America to make the countries of the world tailor their policies to America’s measurements, and if they don’t oblige, then war should be waged against them? How can one understand America’s call for democracy if it does not permit a difference of opinion even in issues of a regional character, to say nothing of international ones?


Hay War Supporters…
What was Saddam referring to who when he used the word “backwardness”?
Yep you guessed it; it’s religious fundamentalism.
Saddam was an ally and we are about to execute him. And it’s only through a court we created and we control through the American Bar association (to name just one of means). In this court there are Shiite fundamentalists (the judge who gave the death sentence is one them).
America; why did we remove a secular Muslim, one with western values from power only to see Iran’s influence expand? Why couldn’t we anticipate the obvious? America was and has long been long warned about this.

Was disaster our mission in Iraq and who does it serve? By now Iraq would have caught up with where it left of in 1991; billions of dollars and 650,000 lives would be saved, and we could use Iraq against Iran.
Well now I just say do nothing with Iran; without them there will be no power of their own (independent of America) capable of standing up for the Arabs of the Middle East. And surely that is needed given Israel’s recent war in Lebanon? Do we want them in a position where they dominant over the continent; where they can side with China ahead of the rate at which are?

A Warning…

Another lie was the claim of American officials that Iraq had links to what they called terrorism, although British Prime Minister Blair declared that Iraq does not have any ties to so-called terrorism and had no internationally prohibited weapons, forcing Bush to declare the same thing. Despite that, none of the important American personalities asked President Bush on what sort of rational analysis or what sort of realistic information this claim rested. Do you know, esteemed ladies and gentlemen, why they didn’t ask? Because some of your prominent personalities are directed in what they do by hidden forces that distorted the image you received of Iraq’s positions. They had been laying the groundwork for years to facilitate aggression from the start. Therefore no one asked the American officials, for example, why no Iraqi took part in the events of 11 September!? And if the participation of individuals in the attack on American targets isn’t to be taken as proof of the involvement of any country in those events, then how do you accuse a state like Iraq, the features of whose political system are known, of so-called relations with terror? How can you consider this charge to be one of only two on the basis of which aggression was launched against the people of Iraq, destroying their property and achievements and bringing their lives under daily and direct threat?


Anyway: I’ve only quoted about a 5th or less of his letter. He talks about his detainment…


After I was arrested they made vain attempts to use intimidation and threats against me. One of their generals conveyed that intimidation and host threats and tried to bargain with me, promising to let me live if I agreed to read in my own voice and sign a prepared announcement that was shown to me. That stupid announcement called on the people of Iraq and the courageous Resistance to lay down arms. They said that if I refused, my fate would be that I would be shot just like Mussolini, as my interlocutor put it. But, as you know me and would expect of me, I disdainfully refused, not even touching that dirty document with my hand and sullying myself with it. I told them if I were given the chance to address my people, I would call them to more resistance.


It’s true. You have to admire Saddam for defying death by refusing to read out our own propaganda lines. Anyway (as said) there’s much more to read.


[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

[edit: fixed bbcode]

[edit on 11/7/2006 by 12m8keall2c]




posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Updated: 01:59 PM EST


Saddam Hussein Calls for Reconciliation in Iraq
By SINAN SALAHEDDIN and ROBERT H. REID, AP

BAGHDAD, Iraq (Nov. 7) - "A somber and subdued Saddam Hussein called on Iraqis to "forgive, reconcile and shake hands" as he returned to court Tuesday for his Kurdish genocide trial two days after being sentenced to death in a separate case."

The letter you post gives an interesting perspective.




It seems he may be hopeing that all Iraqis now, not just sunnis get together and start resisting U.S. invaders by his calling on all Iraqis to "forgive, reconcile, and shake hands".

But I also read that the shiites are celebrateing in the streets over Sadam's death sentence.





[edit on 7-11-2006 by elaine]



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
his Excellencies letter ...


He isn't 'His Excellency'. He is a mass murdering tyrant. I don't give a crap what he has to say. Soon he will rot in hell .... with his two sons!



You have to admire Saddam ...


Oh no I don't.!! He's a liar and a mass murderer and a rapist voyuer. He's one sick puppy.


[edit on 11/7/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Oh no I don't.!! He's a liar and a mass murderer and a rapist voyuer. He's one sick puppy.


What's truly sick is ignorance. Perhaps you should stop watching corporate news?

Might help a little



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

He isn't 'His Excellency'. He is a mass murdering tyrant. I don't give a crap what he has to say. Soon he will rot in hell .... with his two sons!


- Ahh I see, mass murder huh? What about the 3000 people that have died for the lies of Bush? WOuldn't that make him also prone to "rottening in hell"? He'll just be a little more ronry.



Originally posted by FlyersFan
Oh no I don't.!! He's a liar and a mass murderer and a rapist voyuer. He's one sick puppy.


[edit on 11/7/2006 by FlyersFan]


- And again the difference between him and Bush would be what exactly?

Saddam was no saint, in fact he was a dick. However, merely being a dick is not enough for what has happened. Also, it was that dick that kept the peace in the region. In other words, thanks to this American Admin decisions - that region now needs Saddam. LMAO! I swear, if it wasn't for the killing and maming people daily you couldn't write better comedy than this Admin.



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saddam Hussein
Do you know, esteemed ladies and gentlemen, that I asked one of the American officials who talked with me perhaps two weeks after my arrest, just what was it that you based those false charges on? He said that as far as the weapons of mass destruction were concerned, “we didn’t have anything to confirm what you were saying.” And as for the links to terrorism, he said, because you, Saddam Hussein, did not send a letter of condolence to President Bush after the incident [of 11 September].

I smiled bitterly and told him: as regards your claim that you didn’t have confirmation of our statements, it seems that your officials lie and imagine that officials in countries around the world do not tell the truth, or that many of those who have relations with you in fact do not tell you the truth, neither when they oppose your policies nor when they agree with them. This is a dangerous matter, not only for the countries of the world but because they then pose a danger for America as well, if nobody in the world will tell America: ‘this is a mistake’ and ‘this is unacceptable’! And at that time when American planes were striking targets in Iraq and destroying public and private property, killing Iraqi citizens including women and children for no reason and imposing on Iraq their unjust embargo, prohibiting Iraq from importing even pencils for children to use in primary schools, what exactly is it that should obligate Saddam Hussein to send a telegram of condolences to the president of the state whose officials have committed all those crimes, unless it be out of hypocrisy and weakness? But because I am neither a hypocrite nor a weakling I didn’t send Bush a telegram of condolence. But I did agree on the telegram sent containing condolences in the name of the government of Iraq and sent by Comrade Tariq Aziz, the Deputy Prime Minister, to our friend [US Attorney General] Ramsey Clark and through him to the stricken families.


Some more insight. Thoughts?

[edit on 7/11/06 by SteveR]

[edit on 7/11/06 by SteveR]



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Saddam’s the mass murder who ruled Iraq for 30 years where previously there had been no fewer than 23 military coups since 1933. He’s the guy who from the 1970’s embarked upon massive social economic programmes which by 1991 had delivered 92% literacy and 93% access to free healthcare often of a near Western standard.
It’s hard to believe; but still true that Iraq was once a boom nation delighting in the fact that unlike other Arab leaders Saddam investment more of his countries Gross national product in his own people than other Arab leader.
All the street lights, most of the tar marked roads and highways you saw when the country was bombed all put there by Saddam.

Yes Saddam killed the Kurds but in 1974 he tried hard to negotiate with them. He offered them autonomy within their own section of Iraq, and a fair share of the oil money. If it hadn’t been for the fact that these tribal peoples leaders had been corrupted by Iranian bribes the offers would never have been objected.
Then in 1988 when the Kurds were siding with the Iranians, when Iraq was piling up debt and like any nation at all out war; was resource stretched; the Anfal Campaign began. Yes people were killed, and many wrongly so, what does any other leader of the world do when he is facing armed rebellion within his own country, by a people funded by the enemy, at a time of war, when resources are limited and example clearly needs to be made because bribes have counteracted the alternatives?

In order to deny ether side an absolute victory the West supplied weapons to both sides; and it is mostly because of that so many people died (Israel had actually helped lend Iran money). But like with the Kurds it wasn’t as though Saddam had first tried to negotiate. For a good six months before that war a disputed section of the river Tiqris had been given by Saddam to the Iranians in exchange for that the Kurdish bribes-influence may stop.
But the Iranians angry at Saddam being pro-western did not keep their end of the bargain. And so it was necessary that Saddam announced war against them.

For 34 years Saddam helped bring stability to Iraq; he executed the Muslim fundamentalists who will do the same to anyone he won’t share their beliefs. He delivered Iraqis education because he knew that was the best way of fighting their “backwardism”. And he’s right to call them backward because in a country where at least 60% of the population are Muslim fundamentalist just look at what they’ve done to the place.
Secular Iraqis like Saddam are a sizable minority in Iraq; and it’s not good enough to say that democracy should treat them as such; because that means Iraqis siding with our enemies, imposing their views on the seculars with force, infiltrating the security services and just using it as yet another tool to retaliate against; and therefore stoke up sectarian killings.

This is why Iraqis where better under Saddam, and we need him back again. And when he’s gone we’ll need someone just like him (although admittedly that’s hard to find).

Flyers Fan remember who you serve: The Muslim Fundamentalist.

I'm sure they’re very glad (you their enemy) have liberated them from Saddam. In fact they are: The people celebrating deaths are loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr
Quote…
“Saddam death sentence arouses protests among Sunnis, celebrations among Shiites”
english.people.com.cn...


Despite a curfew imposed on Baghdad, thousands of Iraqi Shiites took to the streets in Sadr City to celebrate the verdict, raising posters of Shiite radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.


Muqtada al-Sadr is Iranian friendly he believes in strict interpretations of Islam permitting the stoning to death of women for things like adultery. He is a good leader as in leadership qualities and therefore a force for backwardness to be reckoned with.

By the way saw the pictures of those Iraqi kids dancing up and down “in celebration of the death sentence” that film footage had people delivering sweets. And as if to prove it…
www.newkerala.com...

The Left has denounced the death sentence on Saddam Hussain while Shia Muslims have welcomed the verdict by distributing sweets.



The Western People have been lied to so much by their governments during this invasion of Iraq. Sometimes its omitting information like that till the early 1920’s (and officially 60’s) Kuwait was part of Iraq for thousands of years. Indeed it was created by the British to divide Iraq’s oil wealth up (and that’s why its borders are so oil rich, and why Iraqis still want it back).
At other times it’s the WMD’s we were till recently always quite near to finding. On other times its Saddam’s human paper shredder story (since proven false by the testimony of the person who released it) members.iimetro.com.au... (Good link contains other planted stories against Saddam) (obviously not that bad or we wouldn’t have to lie about him).

Saddam Hussein is a brave man who even when facing death refused to co-operate with us in exchange for mercy, and serving our propaganda purposes. Yes he had palaces but not one was built (or indeed completed) during the course of U.N sanctions. And they absorbed only a fraction of Iraq’s wealth (Saddam gained-saved the country far more when coming to power he kicked the British and American oil companies out).
Saddam didn’t have to get rid of his weapons of mass destruction but he did it in the belief we would lift U.N sanctions (something that would of saved Iraqi people much misery). He did it because he thought that we wouldn’t invade his country and impose still more misery.

Surely under him Iraq could (financially) be where it was pre-1991 if we hadn’t removed him?
Who do you serve Flyers Fan? Who do all the other people serve who regurgitate lies they’ve picked of the mass corporately funded, never two sided media which buys up its competition and in actual fact isn’t owned by that many people (Rupert Murdoch for example owns 174 newspapers worldwide).
I'm not trying to be offensive when I say you serve the Muslim Fundermentalists; just brutally honest, because you oppose the guy who I (and history) knows opposed them wisely and best.

P.S For any other links just ask.



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
P.S For any other links just ask.


Thanks but no thanks. I have had enough propaganda for today.



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Propaganda? I'm not aware of trying to deliberately mislead anyone. Perhaps you could be more specific? Or even debunk this propaganda you talk about?

Right now I'm trying to debunk the states propaganda (and the media networks influenced by those who influence our political parties).

That said (to be fair) I do come up with an awful lot of information (then again, I’ve got a lot to show). However I see how this could be tiring; so I’ll try to be on topic, if your up for it (hope you are as seem to be if can post the odd “alleging” comment).
But yeah; thanks for sharing you’re attitude (respected Flyers Fan was the last).



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Doesn't matter anyway. He will soon be hanging from the nearest tree branch and will be shoveling coal in hell with his 2 psycho sons.



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 10:21 PM
link   
And this contributes to the discussion how?

*sigh*

It seems, 1984, when they are confronted with a conspiracy of such huge porportions it is incomprehensible to beleive. Their current reality is the safe bubble. They avoid unwanted ramifications on their identity and morality.

It is that image the Government builds and thrives upon. Nazi citizens knew no better. Most people are waking up - but when you're the last it costs nothing to be a patriot. Remember that.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
I'm not aware of trying to deliberately mislead anyone. Perhaps you could be more specific?


You are misleading people by posting something you/the website claim was dated in July of this year when it was in fact written in 2001. That alone makes its contents suspect.

Second Open letter from Saddam to American people



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 09:28 AM
link   
im suprised of the amount op people supporting him what a shame.....
and o yeah liberal saddam never talked to the kurds a friend of mine was there when they told him to wear gasmask while they bombed the kurds and world dusnt need another one thank god we got rid of this one



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   

from ShotsYou are misleading people by posting something you/the website claim was dated in July of this year when it was in fact written in 2001. That alone makes it suspect


No silly that was another letter by Saddam Hussein to the American people. I posted it on ATS about a year ago.
Now before you make accusations I suggest you compare the text in your 2001 source with my July 06. For example your source says…

Quote from…
english.people.com.cn...
"The U.S. needs to try wisdom after it has tried force over the past 50 years or more,"

So if my source is a reprint of 2001 you should be able to find those exact words in it.

Oh and just to prove your wrong here are the letters from Saddam Hussein to the American people…
First Letter: www.abovetopsecret.com...
(13 September 2001)
Second Letter www.abovetopsecret.com...
(14th September 2001) (This ones long and nearly in full)

At the time I posted these (late 2005) there was next to nothing on the internet, so much so people actually questioned whether they were authentic. In my eyes it’s a scandal these never hit the mainstream press; because they would have raised serious honest questions about what we were planning.
However some friends of mine have the original translated versions from Iraq; I have copies, and they’re now more available on the net.

P.S Shots you should be more careful about how you make your accusations (otherwise people might think your trying to create discrediting propaganda)

One question Shots: How could Saddam refer to American interrogations (or indeed prison) back in 2001 when he was still in power and the war hadn’t even started yet? Just thought that was worth asking.

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984

So if my source is a reprint of 2001 you should be able to find those exact words in it.



I never said it was a reprint. What I said is it was suspect.

Now can you prove the letter was in fact from Saddam? Keep in mind allegedly all of his letters are censored by the military, yet this alleged letter does not appear to have any censorship at all. I also understand he is only allowed to communicate with his lawyers and family which is another reason to question it.

Exampole of one censored letter

[edit on 11/8/2006 by shots]



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Oh no I don't.!! He's a liar and a mass murderer


In what perspective does he differ from our exellency Bush, my dearest Neoconservative friend?



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 07:18 AM
link   
To the outraged ones on this thread I ask you, where was your outrage when the US and your tax dollars were helping Saddam perpatrate his crimes. Where is your outrage know for all the innocent Iraqi men, women and children that are dying at the hands of yet another Dictator, where is your hummanity, your compassion are you yet just another servant of the devil, you call Saddam evil but you support the killing in Iraq and Afganistan, if you want to see evil go look in the mirror.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2
In what perspective does he differ from our exellency Bush, my dearest Neoconservative friend?


Thank you for calling me your 'dearest' friend. However, I am not a neocon.

I can't be a neocon if I'm against the death penalty for most cases.
I cant' be a neocon if I think the war in Iraq has been badly mishandled.
I can't be a neocon if I'm against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
I can't be a neocon if I'm not a fundi.
I can't be a neocon if I'm FOR Independent Lieberman and DEM Harold Ford Jr.
I can't be a neocon if I'm for Guiliani and not Rick Santorum.
etc etc etc

(shout out to Tennessee .. it was a MAJOR mistake not voting Ford in the Senate!!)

To answer your question .... frankly there are way too many points of difference to be able to discuss this with you. And if you really think the two are cut from the same cloth, then it would be impossible for me to educate you over the internet.

- Bush was freely elected into office. YES he was and don't bother pulling anything about SCOTUS putting him in. He was elected. Saddam was a dictator for decades and there were no free elections.

- Bush didn't use WMD on Americans and he didn't kill thousands with it. Saddam used WMD (gas) on the Kurds and murdered thousands.

- Bush didn't mass murder Americans by the hundreds of thousands just because they disagreed with his policies. Saddam did.

- Bush didn't starve to death Americans, or cause them to die from lack of medical care, while he stole their money and built palaces with it. Saddam did - Oil for Food scandle. Saddam stole billions. Google it up.

- Saddam went to war with Iran and Kuwait in an agression to take over the middle east. He killed MILLIONS upon MILLIONS and cause millions more to be maimed. Bush did not do that. And anything that he has done in Iraq was defensive. You don't believe that ... but that's the way it is.

- Saddam had government run mass rape rooms. Thousands upon thousands of women were raped and tortured in front of their families. Saddam watched tapes of it and got off on it. Bush didn't do that.

- Saddam allowed his sons to torture olympic athletes. Bush didn't do that.

- etc etc

To compare the two is silly. They aren't even close.


Originally posted by Liberal1984
Who do you serve Flyers Fan?


My God, my family, my country and myself.

By the looks of your posts I can see who YOU serve.
Careful liberal .. you are being used. A useful tool of the anti-American euros and socialists.



[edit on 11/9/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   
The only reason Shots and Flyersfan act "outraged" is because what he is saying actually makes sense. The guy was no angel (then again, is Bush, Olmert or Blair?), but before 1991 when we double crossed him, Saddam actually ran a fairly decent little country. I've been saying it for years.

Unlike the folly they have so blindly followed over the years from our side of the fence.

Note the considerable lack of actual argument against it, just feigned indignation and accusations of propoganda.




posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Thank you for calling me your 'dearest' friend. However, I am not a neocon.


My apologies for the rude insult




Originally posted by FlyersFan
- Bush didn't use WMD on Americans and he didn't kill thousands with it. Saddam used WMD (gas) on the Kurds and murdered thousands.


Instead he is responsible for leading and starting an illegal war, which has caused the death of more than 600,000 Iraqi citizens.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
By the looks of your posts I can see who YOU serve.
Careful liberal .. you are being used. A useful tool of the anti-American euros and socialists.


Thank you for the warning. I'm not a Bush fan-boy
But clarify who you think I serve? My own mind.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join