Saddam's right-hand man reported dies in custody

The iraqi officials already are starting to die off in u.s. custody,hmm and now saddam has cancer?


"Unofficial Iraqi sources told Al Bawaba Wednesday that Abed Hamoud al-Tikriti, presidential secretary of former leader Saddam Hussein, died two days ago while in US custody. Iraqi security officials contacted by Al Bawaba declined to comment on the report, but have not denied it either... Upon his capture, the US authorities claimed Abed Hamoud possessed vital information about Iraq's alleged WMD. Since his detention, reports in the Arabic press have claimed he was tortured by US investigators to pressure him to provide information on weapons development programs."

Saddam is gonna be next......

www.albawaba.com...



[Edited on 9-1-2004 by McGotti]

that would be too bad. Saddam is a good guy really.

never said that neo....thats not the point is it??

Of course Sadaam will be next, he's go so much dirt on us. How can you charge someone with crimes against humanity when you were the one who supplied him with the materials to commit these crimes. Kinda hipocritical.

Thats like saying, "How can you charge someone with murder, when you are the one who sold him the gun?"... Just doesnt work that way man..

Originally posted by Milk
Thats like saying, "How can you charge someone with murder, when you are the one who sold him the gun?"... Just doesnt work that way man..

My point exactly

So, are you saying that because you sold him the gun, you are as responsible for his actions as he is? Doesnt make sense. If you were to buy a pet rock for a 4 year old kid, and he threw it at the neighbor girl, and killed her with it, would you be responsible? If you sold someone a car, and they killed someone driving drunk should you be held responsible? This is the same situation, on a larger scale...

Originally posted by Milk
So, are you saying that because you sold him the gun, you are as responsible for his actions as he is? Doesnt make sense. If you were to buy a pet rock for a 4 year old kid, and he threw it at the neighbor girl, and killed her with it, would you be responsible? If you sold someone a car, and they killed someone driving drunk should you be held responsible? This is the same situation, on a larger scale...

It's like this, we sold Sadaam the mustard gas and nerve gas to use on Iran which he did but, he also used it on the Kurds and his own people. If you sell someone a gun to use on someone else, in this case Iran, knowingly and with your blessing then yes you are as guilty as them. That is my belief

Originally posted by AgentOrange
It's like this, we sold Sadaam the mustard gas and nerve gas to use on Iran which he did but, he also used it on the Kurds and his own people. If you sell someone a gun to use on someone else, in this case Iran, knowingly and with your blessing then yes you are as guilty as them. That is my belief

Guilty for him using them on Iran, NOT on the Kurds.

[

Guilty for him using them on Iran, NOT on the Kurds.


Murder is murder.

I dont understand why it was ok for russia to kill all the chechyan rebels[among thousands of other countries doing the same,uganda ect ect] but its not ok for saddam to kill kurds.Kurds were against him and his regime..so he did what all leaders do when somebody within their country challenges them..they kill them...just as we are killing iraqis that are fighting against the u.s. now...
I dont think its right that he killed people,but dont let yourself be fooled into thinking that the u.s. gov. gives a damn about kurds otherwise we would have been over their along time ago... actually their is documentation the the u.s. gov. did not care about saddam killing kurds..and I believe that evidence has already been posted..



[Edited on 9-1-2004 by McGotti]

Originally posted by Milk
So, are you saying that because you sold him the gun, you are as responsible for his actions as he is? Doesnt make sense. If you were to buy a pet rock for a 4 year old kid, and he threw it at the neighbor girl, and killed her with it, would you be responsible? If you sold someone a car, and they killed someone driving drunk should you be held responsible? This is the same situation, on a larger scale...

hey man there are a lot of confused people out there isn't there?

see this kind of thinking is directly masonic globalistic whereby the individual is taught that they are not responsible for their actions but the state or the 'collective' is.

It's just a really f@#ked up world and the US needs to mind it's own business and worry about it's own people.

Originally posted by AgentOrange
It's just a really f@#ked up world and the US needs to mind it's own business and worry about it's own people.

That, I will definately agree with. If, and even as a supporter of Bush, thats a big if, WMD are found in Iraq, is it not true that we were minding our own buisness by trying not to get blown to # by them?

Originally posted by THENEO

see this kind of thinking is directly masonic globalistic whereby the individual is taught that they are not responsible for their actions but the state or the 'collective' is.

what?? yes, you sell somebody a gun when you know their intent is harm then you are partially responsible for any deaths or injuries inflicted by the weapon...

and the people of the nation will directly suffer from the actions of their leaders..which is why people need to stand up to bush and stop his madness before we all pay the price[its probably to late though]

Originally posted by Milk


That, I will definately agree with. If, and even as a supporter of Bush, thats a big if, WMD are found in Iraq, is it not true that we were minding our own buisness by trying not to get blown to # by them?

I dont think even if we did find WMD there i would feel any different about invading iraq.....iraq never attacked the u.s...there was no threat posed by them..they were weak, broke down country using outdated mid century soviet tanks and still using horses....

The people speaking out against invading iraq are not speaking out against invading afganistan are they?? why is that?? thats because that was a country that actaully posed a minamal threat to the u.s.

Originally posted by McGotti

Originally posted by Milk


That, I will definately agree with. If, and even as a supporter of Bush, thats a big if, WMD are found in Iraq, is it not true that we were minding our own buisness by trying not to get blown to # by them?

I dont think even if we did find WMD there i would feel any different about invading iraq.....iraq never attacked the u.s...there was no threat posed by them..they were weak, broke down country using outdated mid century soviet tanks and still using horses....

Exactly my point. They were despirate. Hussein specifically. Who is more likely to rob a liquer store, a wealthy individual with plenty of booze at home, or a bum who cant afford to buy it?

It's actually a good point...but it isn't the fact that he gassed Kurds. It's that he gassed (or more correctly it seems, he AND Iran gassed) civilians (women and children) in a village, along with military units/rebels. The rebels took refuge in the town, and rather than target them, and where they were, they simply gassed the whole damned place....(from my understanding). This is why it's confusing who gassed who, Iran gassed the Iraqi soldiers, and the Iraqis gassed the Kurdish rebels, but in the crossfire, they both (or one of them) ended up gassing a village....

The real point of this though, seems to be an idea that the Iraqis are being killed off while in US custody. If so, then yes, there is a serious imperative to get to the bottom of it. Has there been any other confirmation of this (other than arab sources)?

The American public isn't speaking up about Afghanistan for a reason btw..... The Taliban were deliberately shielding Osama. With Iraq, it's less cut and dry, as Saddam was only indirectly associated with terrorism, as a funder...not deliberately shielding the most wanted man in the world.....