Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Saddam Hussein arrested

page: 18
0
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 16 2003 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by yakyaki
Yes now saddam arrested...that is very good to many peoples...
I saw in the pics where Saddam hide in the farms there were two American Soliders behind them Date Plam full with Dates!!!!!!!????????

I am from Mid-East and Know the Date Palmes very will..
The Dates not grow in the winter at all..
The maxium session for dates is at the end of September..

So , what is your reply?!!!!






Yakyaki....
Thanks for the information. My only question is: Do you have a link to the picture that you are refering to? I would be interested in seeing exactly what you are refering to.
Also, what is the name of the particular date that you are refering to that is grown in Iraq and in which area of Iraq? Are they Khadrawy, Zahidi, Dayri, Sayer, or Amir Haji type dates?


regards
seekerof




posted on Dec, 16 2003 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Seekerof and others

yakyaki started a whole other thread on this, and the pics are up.

Its title is to do with wanting to change your mind.

Netchicken displays his horticultural aspirations over on that thread. I think dates in December became relevant for the first time in this.

[Edited on 16-12-2003 by MaskedAvatar]



posted on Dec, 16 2003 @ 09:50 PM
link   
For TheShadowKnows

Why exactly would anything that Bush has said about the capture of Saddam Hussein make you support Bush? I must have missed it.



Originally posted by Seekerof
here though....its quite a significant day....in that those folks are and will be grabbing tissue boxes, for all the crying they will and are doing, because they will see that all their conspiracy theories centering on Saddam and Iraq, will and are beginning to crumble around their collective azz's!

seekerof


Funny thing. I think it's good, bringing closure to this, it's worthy of celebrating. But in case you hadn't noticed, the violence and the conspiracy theories are just now only beginning again.

You seem to think that the Bush admin is honest for some reason. That is bizarre in light of the major revelations you were going to make about corruption in the Bush admin several months ago.

You seem to think people are as simple as the thinking you show here. What's up?




[Edited on 17-12-2003 by MaskedAvatar]



posted on Dec, 17 2003 @ 01:54 AM
link   
Washington Post 12/16/03

"Saddam's earthen hide-out, six feet underground, was so narrow that he probably could not have bent his knees while inside it. The T-shaped hole was barely large enough for a man his size to lie down. At one end, where he apparently laid his head, there was a pipe for ventilation and a tiny plastic fan. On the other side, there was a fluorescent bulb. The walls were cement and brick. The floor was dirt."

Global Security 4/9/03

"Reports, some stretching back years, allege the existence of tunnels and bunkers built by Serbian, German or Chinese engineering firms, leading from palaces to secret hideaways and more.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld repeated those claims in December, arguing the futility of U.N. searches for weapons of mass destruction.

"They've got enormous miles and miles and miles of underground tunneling," Rumsfeld said. "I don't know how inspectors on the surface of the Earth can even know what's going on in the underground facilities."


Hmmm..Only one of these stories can be correct.



posted on Dec, 17 2003 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by kukla
Washington Post 12/16/03

"Saddam's earthen hide-out, six feet underground, was so narrow that he probably could not have bent his knees while inside it. The T-shaped hole was barely large enough for a man his size to lie down. At one end, where he apparently laid his head, there was a pipe for ventilation and a tiny plastic fan. On the other side, there was a fluorescent bulb. The walls were cement and brick. The floor was dirt."

Global Security 4/9/03

"Reports, some stretching back years, allege the existence of tunnels and bunkers built by Serbian, German or Chinese engineering firms, leading from palaces to secret hideaways and more.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld repeated those claims in December, arguing the futility of U.N. searches for weapons of mass destruction.

"They've got enormous miles and miles and miles of underground tunneling," Rumsfeld said. "I don't know how inspectors on the surface of the Earth can even know what's going on in the underground facilities."


Hmmm..Only one of these stories can be correct.


If I'm correct, and I don't have any info. in front of me at the moment, American companies also helped construct his supposed bunkers. I remember seeing an incredible graphic detailing one of them last year. But, I would imagine that is how heir Rumsfeld knows what he knows.



posted on Dec, 17 2003 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Look at Saddam! If you are stupid enough to sign a contract with Satan (the Bush Crime Family), then the Devil will come and collect---like with Noreiga and Saddam. Saddam will now go to hell along with the Bush Crime Family.



posted on Dec, 17 2003 @ 12:19 PM
link   
What I wanna know, is what exactly led to the bad blood between Saddam and the Bushies? Their good relations were far more valuable and profitable than becoming enemies. Both camps were enchanted with one another for quite some time. What exactly did Saddam do for Bush I to turn on him and lure him into invading Kuwait? No one has ever been able to answer that question.



posted on Dec, 17 2003 @ 12:29 PM
link   
1. Bush led Saddam to belive that is was OK to take Kuwait in 1991.

2. Clandestine US support (by the gang that now rule US..) for Iraq during Gulf 1.. they supplied weapons, WMDs and intel to Iraqis.



*edit*

to point one: Bush senior.

[Edited on 17-12-2003 by FULCRUM]



posted on Dec, 17 2003 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Thanks, Fulcrum. But that still doesn't answer the question: What led to the double cross over Kuwait? If you think about it, other than our ally Israel and Iraq hating each other, the relationship as it was before the Gulf War was very mutually beneficial. Much more so than going to war against them. That is, unless, the Bush cabal had designs on taking Iraq over even at that time, envisioning the slow destruction of Iraq through a sanctions regime. Seems like a lotta trouble to me. If they had even wanted to kill Saddam back then, it would have been easier from within.

[Edited on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Dec, 17 2003 @ 01:51 PM
link   
ps..

Back during Bush I's presidency, The Clean Break Strategy (neocons) was offered. Ya know what daddy Bush called its neo-con authors? (Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Bolton et al) "THOSE LOONIES." Doesn't exactly sound like he was in the same state of mind as the current occupants of the White House.



posted on Dec, 17 2003 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

What led to the double cross over Kuwait?


What i think is:

Soviet Union collapsing USA, now as sole Super power on the planet just needed a good show of force..

Beating crap out of Iraq would be one..

And it became one..




posted on Dec, 17 2003 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by FULCRUM

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

What led to the double cross over Kuwait?


What i think is:

Soviet Union collapsing USA, now as sole Super power on the planet just needed a good show of force..

Beating crap out of Iraq would be one..

And it became one..



Hhmmm... I dunno Fulcrum. Think back to before that.. While I was in BASIC training the big nemesis we were taught to hate was Ghadafi. By the time I got back from Christmas leave (in AIT) it was Noriega. Bush double-crossed him, too. Remember? That had to do with the drug trade. We got him purty good, too.



posted on Dec, 17 2003 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by FULCRUM

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

What led to the double cross over Kuwait?


What i think is:

Soviet Union collapsing USA, now as sole Super power on the planet just needed a good show of force..

Beating crap out of Iraq would be one..

And it became one..



Hhmmm... I dunno Fulcrum. Think back to before that.. While I was in BASIC training the big nemesis we were taught to hate was Ghadafi. By the time I got back from Christmas leave (in AIT) it was Noriega. Bush double-crossed him, too. Remember? That had to do with the drug trade. We got him purty good, too.


The thing is, Saddam was broke. He borrowed and spent so much prosecuting the Iran/Iraq war, building his palaces, Iraqi infrastructure, etc. He just became broke to Bush and friends and turned into a liablility.



posted on Dec, 17 2003 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Why didn't they just send in some hitmen to take out Saddam then? Obviously that is not easy to do in a dictatorship but lot easier to do in most other places.



posted on Dec, 18 2003 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by heelstone
I saw that they somehow already did a DNA test and got a match for Saddam with it. Whatever they used to do the test, its super-fast. This brings even more question as to why Saddam's sons DNA results have taken 5+ months so far without release.

[Edited on 14-12-2003 by heelstone]


they must have got the original sample of his dna when they sponsored him for dictator?
I think they caught him a few months ago



posted on Dec, 18 2003 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Link!

Saddam Hussein's former translator has said the US will not allow the ex-Iraqi president to be tried in public because of potentially damaging revelations.



Saddam could implicate the US and Britain in his crimes.



"I do not believe that he would be tried publicly. He has nothing to lose and he would say everything if he was tried,"



"He knows a lot of things that could damage international relations - he knows crucial secrets. I don't think that a public trial is in the interest of any of the countries that launched the war on Iraq.



"And maybe that is why US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld hinted that Saddam is considered a prisoner of war, because international law stipulates that POWs cannot be tried."



And Dr Saman, who is an Iraqi Kurd, said the Saddam he knew would not have surrendered without resistance.



"It was a Hollywood-style show of power. I can confirm that if he was caught without resistance, then he was not able to resist either because he was gassed or caught as he was sleeping.



"I do not believe the Americans. They do not have any credibility, I doubt the story they are telling."



"He is a very neat and elegant man. He would not have let his hair and face look as dirty as looked."



"He is a very neat and elegant man. He would not have let his hair and face look as dirty as looked."



"Now they will find themselves free to participate in armed resistance to drive the occupation out of Iraq".



The real OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM is about commence.




posted on Dec, 18 2003 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by THENEO
Why didn't they just send in some hitmen to take out Saddam then? Obviously that is not easy to do in a dictatorship but lot easier to do in most other places.


Personally, I was of the Baer school of thought on that. True, pinpointing Saddam's location/movements was very difficult once we cut relations; but, not altogether impossible with good human intelligence. Instead of mounting a costly war and being seen as defying world opinion, I think we should've taken him out covertly with the help of our allies in the north. It would've been far less expensive in blood and treasure and much more clean all the way around.



posted on Dec, 18 2003 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by FULCRUM
Link!

Saddam Hussein's former translator has said the US will not allow the ex-Iraqi president to be tried in public because of potentially damaging revelations.



Saddam could implicate the US and Britain in his crimes.



"I do not believe that he would be tried publicly. He has nothing to lose and he would say everything if he was tried,"



"He knows a lot of things that could damage international relations - he knows crucial secrets. I don't think that a public trial is in the interest of any of the countries that launched the war on Iraq.




I agree with these statements.

[Edited on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Dec, 18 2003 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Which part of "We want Hussein to be tried by the Iraqi people so that the people affected by his crimes can be the ones to decide his justice" are you not understanding?

Please refer to the comments of the United States government regarding Hussein's future plans before you start spouting bull# about close trials. Most of the people involved have indicated a strong desire for him to be tried BY IRAQIS. It's not our game. He didn't gas me, he gassed 400,000 Kurds. Let the residents of the country he brutalized decide his fate. That appears to be the desire of the USA. If the Iraqis want to try him public or private, that's up to them. Go bitch about them then. Maybe you'll say that the Iraqis themselves are doing the wrong thing too because you always know better. And you say the US butts in too much! The Iraqi people will decide public or private trial proceedings. Mind your own business and let them run the trial.



posted on Dec, 18 2003 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Djarums, I'm not clear on who you're addressing here. As far as I'm concerned, I think the Iraqi people should have first crack at him, as he belongs to them first and foremost. Once they have acquired their justice the following states could and should have their day:
Iran
Kuwait
Israel
U.S. - our POW's from the first Gulf war have already won a judgement against Hussein's government. Unfortunately for them, the Bush administration is blocking their award, which is a travesty.






top topics



 
0
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join