US Marine Calls Public Story of Saddam Capture Fiction

[drRansom]

-source- (http://interestalert.com/brand/siteia.shtml?Story=st/sn/03090002aaa01c9a.upi&Sys=siteia&Fid=FRONTPAG&Type=News&Filter=Front%20Page)

Public version of Saddam capture fiction

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, March 9 (UPI) -- A former U.S. Marine who participated in capturing ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein said the public version of his capture was fabricated.

Ex-Sgt. Nadim Abou Rabeh, of Lebanese descent, was quoted in the Saudi daily al-Medina Wednesday as saying Saddam was actually captured Friday, Dec. 12, 2003, and not the day after, as announced by the U.S. Army.

"I was among the 20-man unit, including eight of Arab descent, who searched for Saddam for three days in the area of Dour near Tikrit, and we found him in a modest home in a small village and not in a hole as announced," Abou Rabeh said.

"We captured him after fierce resistance during which a Marine of Sudanese origin was killed," he said.

He said Saddam himself fired at them with a gun from the window of a room on the second floor. Then they shouted at him in Arabic: "You have to surrender. ... There is no point in resisting."

"Later on, a military production team fabricated the film of Saddam's capture in a hole, which was in fact a deserted well," Abou Rabeh said.

Abou Rabeh was interviewed in Lebanon.

Copyright 2005 by United Press International.
All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2005 UPI
News Copyright © 2005 Interest!ALERT All rights reserved.


Hmmm, what are the chances that this story will even get a hint of airplay on FoxNews or CNN?

[BillyBob]

Who cares?

The real story is that we captured Saddam, liberated 25 million people and paved the way for a new democracy with free elections.

[drRansom]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Who cares?

The real story is that we captured Saddam, liberated 25 million people and paved the way for a new democracy with free elections.

Who cares????

If what this Marine says is true, doesn't that (and shouldn't it) raise a number of questions? Such as why would our government fabricate the "Saddam holed-up" story?

[BillyBob]

You keep missing the point.

:Commie:

[BillyBob]

:banana:

[Granite]

If the story was fake it's no surprise.

The only history worth anything is the history you don't know.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob

You keep missing the point.

:Commie: The point being that, when fighting the Good Fight™, the end justifies the means...?

By the way, those 25 million people aren't fully liberated: they aren't free to tell the US to take a hike. If they do, you can bet there'll be some serious pimp-slapping in the offing...

US: <smack! smack! smack!> "And stay down!"

Iraq: "Thank you, sir. May I have another?"

:chuckle:

[On Fire]

Originally posted by drRansom
Hmmm, what are the chances that this story will even get a hint of airplay on FoxNews or CNN? :cow: poop.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by On Fire
:cow: poop. A most accurate description of Faux News...

:thumb:

[aikido7]

Who cares?

The real story is that we captured Saddam, liberated 25 million people and paved the way for a new democracy with free elections.




Who cares if we lied, manipulated and blundered in Iraq? The real story is that we pulled down a statue, alienated the Iraqis, unwittingly fomented a more terrorist-plaged world and hopefully influenced other regimes to consider democratic rule--and we did it THE ONLY WAY we could: By killing other people, including other Americans!




Hey--we had NO OTHER choice! Really! Our unlimited imagination could only come up with the dubious alternative which is based on "kill your enemies!" And we're gonna display that message in stone in every school and courthouse in the nation!

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Who cares?

The real story is that we captured Saddam, liberated 25 million people and paved the way for a new democracy with free elections. So then if none of our news is supposed to be accurate, and you don't care, that explains a lot. Especially how you have such a convoluted view of the world. You believe lies and you don't care that they are lies. How can you be sure of anything that you think you know? You probably believe the history you were taught in school.

The rest of the world is bad. We are good, The rest of the world is bad. We are good. The rest of the world is bad. We are good. Keep repeating.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Michael Moorepheus

So then if none of our news is supposed to be accurate, and you don't care, that explains a lot. Especially how you have such a convoluted view of the world. You believe lies and you don't care that they are lies. How can you be sure of anything that you think you know? You probably believe the history you were taught in school.

Go watch Farenheit 9-11, I'm sure it fits your definition of accurate reporting. :chuckle:


Commies are bad, Conservatives are good, Commies are bad, Conservatives are good, Commies are bad, Conservatives are good, Keep repeating.

Now you're getting it!

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by BillyBob Go watch Farenheit 9-11, I'm sure it fits your definition of accurate reporting. :chuckle:
Have you seen it?

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Michael Moorepheus

Have you seen it?

Of course...... :vomit:

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Of course...... :vomit: Whatever for?

It would have been a more pleasant (and productive) use of your time to peel the skin off your face and douse yourself with isopropyl alcohol.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Gerald

Whatever for?

It would have been a more pleasant (and productive) use of your time to peel the skin off your face and douse yourself with isopropyl alcohol.

:darwinsm:

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Conservatives are good...Speak for yourself...nancy-boy. ;)

Every conservative I've ever encountered has tried to screw me over in one way or another.

Maybe I just keep running into the bad apples, but the pattern is pretty disturbing, all the same... :noid:

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Gerald

Speak for yourself...nancy-boy. ;)

:madmad:



Every conservative I've ever encountered has tried to screw me over in one way or another.

Maybe I just keep running into the bad apples, but the pattern is pretty disturbing, all the same... :noid:

I suppose neat you're going to tell me that every liberal you ever encountered was a swell person. :rolleyes:

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Gerald

Speak for yourself...nancy-boy. ;)

Every conservative I've ever encountered has tried to screw me over in one way or another.

Maybe I just keep running into the bad apples, but the pattern is pretty disturbing, all the same... :noid: The conservative's focus is pretty much on himself to the exclusion of all others. In fact that is almost the definition of conservative.

[BillyBob]

:darwinsm:

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
I suppose neat you're going to tell me that every liberal you ever encountered was a swell person. :rolleyes:
swell person: n.; any person that Gerald can easily play for a chump.

Yep, that pretty much pegs all the liberals I've encountered.

Come on, BB, you know I don't play favorites. :chuckle:

[Four O'Clock]

Originally posted by Morpheus

The conservative's focus is pretty much on himself to the exclusion of all others. In fact that is almost the definition of conservative.

Morph, as a Christian who finds most of the ultra right wing garbage spewed around here laughable if it wasn't so pathetic, to be fair I find your above quote to be equally nonsensical...my $0.02

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Four O'Clock

Morph, as a Christian who finds most of the ultra right wing garbage spewed around here laughable if it wasn't so pathetic, to be fair I find your above quote to be equally nonsensical...my $0.02 I understand your position, but when I speak of conservative in this forum I'm referring to politically conservative not socially or morally conservative. They are not the same thing. I am quite morally conservative, but when it comes to politics I have found that the driving force behind the conservative agenda quite self-centered. If you look critically at most of the arguments you will find that the conservative view is essentially, "What about me". As an example, in this Christian forum most of the same Christians who say that taxes need cut by cutting out social programs are the same Christians who wouldn't give a dime to make up the difference doing so would make to a hungry family. The money is theirs, not God's or Ceasar's. They believe that if their neighbor is hungry, don't feed him, that's his problem. They're the ones who believe that bombing innocent civilians is all right because we are stronger and therefore have the right to dictate policy to other nations, and the end justifies the means. They believe that we should use force to reshape the world. I just believe that there is a better way. Setting an example that others would eventually wish to follow. I believe that is what I learned from my Father.
Essentially conservative politics looks inward for policy, liberal politics looks outward. Conservative politics believes that if it serves me it is good for the nation as a whole; liberal politics believes that if it serves the nation as a whole it is good for me.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by a Deranged Lunatic

If you look critically at most of the arguments you will find that the conservative view is essentially, "What about me". As an example, in this Christian forum most of the same Christians who say that taxes need cut by cutting out social programs are the same Christians who wouldn't give a dime to make up the difference doing so would make to a hungry family.

And how exactly have you come to this conclusion?

The money is theirs, not God's or Ceasar's. They believe that if their neighbor is hungry, don't feed him, that's his problem.

And how exactly have you come to this conclusion?

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by Gerald

Speak for yourself...nancy-boy. ;)

Every conservative I've ever encountered has tried to screw me over in one way or another.

Maybe I just keep running into the bad apples, but the pattern is pretty disturbing, all the same... :noid:
You mean they catch onto you relatively quickly. :thumb:

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by BillyBob

And how exactly have you come to this conclusion?



And how exactly have you come to this conclusion? Do you ever read any of your own posts? I mean the ones with words.

[drRansom]

Originally posted by Morpheus

I understand your position, but when I speak of conservative in this forum I'm referring to politically conservative not socially or morally conservative. They are not the same thing. I am quite morally conservative, but when it comes to politics I have found that the driving force behind the conservative agenda quite self-centered. If you look critically at most of the arguments you will find that the conservative view is essentially, "What about me". As an example, in this Christian forum most of the same Christians who say that taxes need cut by cutting out social programs are the same Christians who wouldn't give a dime to make up the difference doing so would make to a hungry family. The money is theirs, not God's or Ceasar's. They believe that if their neighbor is hungry, don't feed him, that's his problem. They're the ones who believe that bombing innocent civilians is all right because we are stronger and therefore have the right to dictate policy to other nations, and the end justifies the means. They believe that we should use force to reshape the world. I just believe that there is a better way. Setting an example that others would eventually wish to follow. I believe that is what I learned from my Father.
Essentially conservative politics looks inward for policy, liberal politics looks outward. Conservative politics believes that if it serves me it is good for the nation as a whole; liberal politics believes that if it serves the nation as a whole it is good for me.

What is your take on the neoconservative movement of today? How does that fit into your conservative divisions of politically, socially or morally? I'd be interested in your take.

[Chileice]

Originally posted by Morpheus

I understand your position, but when I speak of conservative in this forum I'm referring to politically conservative not socially or morally conservative. They are not the same thing. I am quite morally conservative, but when it comes to politics I have found that the driving force behind the conservative agenda quite self-centered. If you look critically at most of the arguments you will find that the conservative view is essentially, "What about me". As an example, in this Christian forum most of the same Christians who say that taxes need cut by cutting out social programs are the same Christians who wouldn't give a dime to make up the difference doing so would make to a hungry family. The money is theirs, not God's or Ceasar's. They believe that if their neighbor is hungry, don't feed him, that's his problem. They're the ones who believe that bombing innocent civilians is all right because we are stronger and therefore have the right to dictate policy to other nations, and the end justifies the means. They believe that we should use force to reshape the world. I just believe that there is a better way. Setting an example that others would eventually wish to follow. I believe that is what I learned from my Father.
Essentially conservative politics looks inward for policy, liberal politics looks outward. Conservative politics believes that if it serves me it is good for the nation as a whole; liberal politics believes that if it serves the nation as a whole it is good for me.

I think you are all too close to correct. That is why the more I read the Bible and the closer I got to Christ the further I drifted from "Nixon's the One!" past. I had always seen myself as a conservative until about 10 years ago when it seems conservatism lost its whole heart.

I can't pinpoint the moment but I began to realize that the political conservative movement was an "us four , no more" mentality. What reall disturbs me is to see more and more Christians adopting that same attitude, an attitude that splits churches over minor differences of doctrine or worse yet of political opinion or style tastes. It is a also a very America-centric Christianity that somehow has equated U.S. supremecy on the world stage as the equivilent of godliness. I wish the U.S. no bad will but I also do not wish them to think they are some superior race enable to dictate to the world God's plan for each person's life. Jesus can do that, but George Bush can't. This new thing where George Bush is being raised to prophet of God status is downright scarey. It sounds like what will happen when the prophet comes before the anti-Christ.

I wish there were more peope with fiscal sense who had open hearts. Maybe we need to start a new movement and call it neighborism where we try not to take all of the neighbor's goods in taxes nor forget him when in need.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Michael Moorepheus

Do you ever read any of your own posts? I mean the ones with words.

Sure I do, but apparently you do not. That's OK, you commies aren't ever interested in the truth, it doesn't favor you. Instead, you need to rely on lies and false accusations about your opponents [the Good Guys], it's the only way you can feel good about yourself and your stupid ideology.

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Sure I do, but apparently you do not. That's OK, you commies aren't ever interested in the truth, it doesn't favor you. Instead, you need to rely on lies and false accusations about your opponents [the Good Guys], it's the only way you can feel good about yourself and your stupid ideology.
DITTO!

[Granite]

Originally posted by Chileice

I think you are all too close to correct. That is why the more I read the Bible and the closer I got to Christ the further I drifted from "Nixon's the One!" past. I had always seen myself as a conservative until about 10 years ago when it seems conservatism lost its whole heart.

I can't pinpoint the moment but I began to realize that the political conservative movement was an "us four , no more" mentality. What reall disturbs me is to see more and more Christians adopting that same attitude, an attitude that splits churches over minor differences of doctrine or worse yet of political opinion or style tastes. It is a also a very America-centric Christianity that somehow has equated U.S. supremecy on the world stage as the equivilent of godliness. I wish the U.S. no bad will but I also do not wish them to think they are some superior race enable to dictate to the world God's plan for each person's life. Jesus can do that, but George Bush can't. This new thing where George Bush is being raised to prophet of God status is downright scarey. It sounds like what will happen when the prophet comes before the anti-Christ.

I wish there were more peope with fiscal sense who had open hearts. Maybe we need to start a new movement and call it neighborism where we try not to take all of the neighbor's goods in taxes nor forget him when in need.

The church has whored itself for political status and it's paying the price now. Nobody takes it seriously anymore. Going after the GOP has co-opted the church and filled it with wolves.

Power corrupts all right...

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by drRansom

-source- (http://interestalert.com/brand/siteia.shtml?Story=st/sn/03090002aaa01c9a.upi&Sys=siteia&Fid=FRONTPAG&Type=News&Filter=Front%20Page)



Hmmm, what are the chances that this story will even get a hint of airplay on FoxNews or CNN? Wow, stop the presses... an islamic ex sargent states...:blabla: The real question isn't whether Fox News covers the alleged revelation, but whether the story is an out and out islamic fabrication... suitable for framing. Please note the new version gives Saddam a rather glorious gun battle prior to capture, rather than cowering in a spider hole..:chuckle:

[BillyBob]

What I find most distressing is that there are Americans who revel in stories like this, whether they are true or false. They would rather support our enemies than support their own country! They would rather see Americans die than have an American Victory [remember how they were anxiously counting the casualties prior to their glorious 1000 Dead American Soldiers In Iraq?]. They would rather see the rest of the world mired in despotism than see free elections taking place for the first time ever. They would rather extend our Constitutional freedoms to enemy combatants than to enforce them right here at home.

:Commie:'s

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by drRansom

What is your take on the neoconservative movement of today? How does that fit into your conservative divisions of politically, socially or morally? I'd be interested in your take. Neoconservatives and so-called neoliberals both serve essentially the same purpose. They are the sociopathic extreme of conservatism. They don't care how many die or suffer as long as more profit can be made.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Chileice

I think you are all too close to correct. That is why the more I read the Bible and the closer I got to Christ the further I drifted from "Nixon's the One!" past. I had always seen myself as a conservative until about 10 years ago when it seems conservatism lost its whole heart.

I can't pinpoint the moment but I began to realize that the political conservative movement was an "us four , no more" mentality. What reall disturbs me is to see more and more Christians adopting that same attitude, an attitude that splits churches over minor differences of doctrine or worse yet of political opinion or style tastes. It is a also a very America-centric Christianity that somehow has equated U.S. supremecy on the world stage as the equivilent of godliness. I wish the U.S. no bad will but I also do not wish them to think they are some superior race enable to dictate to the world God's plan for each person's life. Jesus can do that, but George Bush can't. This new thing where George Bush is being raised to prophet of God status is downright scarey. It sounds like what will happen when the prophet comes before the anti-Christ.

I wish there were more peope with fiscal sense who had open hearts. Maybe we need to start a new movement and call it neighborism where we try not to take all of the neighbor's goods in taxes nor forget him when in need. The church has become more a cheerleader for the government and less its conscience. It is difficult reading in Revelation about Babylon and the great harlot and not making the connection to this nation as it has become.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by BillyBob They would rather see Americans die than have an American Victory What a stupid statement. Americans die whether there is a victory or defeat. You have no Americans dying only if you avoid the war in the first place moron. They would rather extend our Constitutional freedoms to enemy combatants than to enforce them right here at home. The term "enemy combatant" was invented by the Bush administration in order to try and excuse violating the Geneva Conventions. Once again, how do you spread freedom by destroying it?

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Michael Moorepheus

What a stupid statement. Americans die whether there is a victory or defeat.

That is true, but you commies were celebrating their deaths and using it politically. How disgusting of you! :vomit:

You have no Americans dying only if you avoid the war in the first place moron.

Tell that to the 3000 victims of 9-11, dumbasss.

The term "enemy combatant" was invented by the Bush administration in order to try and excuse violating the Geneva Conventions.

The Geneva Convention doesn't apply to terrorists.

Once again, how do you spread freedom by destroying it?

You're right. Terrorists should be allowed the freedom to terrorize us. What was I thinking? :doh:

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by BillyBob

That is true, but you commies were celebrating their deaths and using it politically. How disgusting of you! :vomit: Nobody celebrated. Nobody's celebrating now. The only celebration was your president landing on a carrier full of returning troops that had been held at sea for hours waiting for his photo op with MISSION ACCOMPLISHED in the background. There were less than 500 American dead when the mission was accomplished.



Tell that to the 3000 victims of 9-11, dumbasss.
Once again, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. You just pointed that out yourself in another thread by stating that Bush never said it himself. (he just implied it repeatedly and had his staff say it for him)


The Geneva Convention doesn't apply to terrorists. They were fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, war zones, therefore they were prisoners of war.



You're right. Terrorists should be allowed the freedom to terrorize us. What was I thinking? :doh: So it's ok for us to destroy our foundations of freedom; is that what you're saying?

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Michael Moorepheus

Nobody celebrated.

The Demo-commies were celebrating.




Once again, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

You are losing track of this debate, so I'll refresh your memory.

You said:
"You have no Americans dying only if you avoid the war in the first place moron."

To which I responded:
" Tell that to the 3000 victims of 9-11, dumbasss."

Now you are trying to change the subject because you are obviously wrong. Pathetic.


You just pointed that out yourself in another thread by stating that Bush never said it himself. (he just implied it repeatedly and had his staff say it for him)

Wrong again. The demo-commies are the ones who claim that Bush said it, even though he never did.


They were fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, war zones, therefore they were prisoners of war.

Nope, that's not how it works.



So it's ok for us to destroy our foundations of freedom; is that what you're saying?

Huh? You are attempting to spin your way out of a losing debate by putting words in my mouth, another commie tactic. :loser:

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by BillyBob

The Demo-commies were celebrating. No they weren't.





You are losing track of this debate, so I'll refresh your memory.

You said:
"You have no Americans dying only if you avoid the war in the first place moron."

To which I responded:
" Tell that to the 3000 victims of 9-11, dumbasss."

Now you are trying to change the subject because you are obviously wrong. Pathetic. You forgot your line that started it all. "They would rather see Americans die than have an American Victory". This implies military deaths, dufus (see below) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, therefore the deaths of 9/11 are irrelevent to the war in Iraq.




Wrong again. The demo-commies are the ones who claim that Bush said it, even though he never did. Dick Cheney said it on Meet The Press. Condi repeated it. The president used Saddam Hussein and 9/11 in the same sentence repeatedly and often. He's an MBA; you don't think he knows anything about salesmanship?




Nope, that's not how it works. It's how it's supposed to work. The point was that your president spun another term to excuse another one of his international law violations.





Huh? You are attempting to spin your way out of a losing debate by putting words in my mouth, another commie tactic. :loser: I asked you, "Once again, how do you spread freedom by destroying it?" You responded, "You're right. Terrorists should be allowed the freedom to terrorize us. What was I thinking?" Then I asked, "So it's ok for us to destroy our foundations of freedom; is that what you're saying?" And now you call it spin because you have painted yourself into a corner.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Morpheus

No they weren't.

Yes they were.





You forgot your line that started it all. "They would rather see Americans die than have an American Victory". This implies military deaths, dufus (see below)

Nope, sorry dumbasss, Americans means Americans.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, therefore the deaths of 9/11 are irrelevent to the war in Iraq.

Iraq is part of the war on terror of which Saddam was a key player.






I asked you, "Once again, how do you spread freedom by destroying it?" You responded, "You're right. Terrorists should be allowed the freedom to terrorize us. What was I thinking?" Then I asked, "So it's ok for us to destroy our foundations of freedom; is that what you're saying?" And now you call it spin because you have painted yourself into a corner.

I answered your question yesterday. Just because you didn't like my answer the first time and keep re asking the same question doesn't obligate me to keep answering it. :loser:

:banana:

[aikido7]

US PUBLIC, WORLD, CALLS PUBLIC STORY OF IRAQ WAR FICTION
______________________________

Today, lies begat more lies when a liar and his liar friends got together to plan a run for the presidency of the United States. In another related development, one Rabbi Yeshua of Nazareth said to a sparse crowd "Whatever is hidden will be revealed."

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by aikido7

US PUBLIC, WORLD, CALLS PUBLIC STORY OF IRAQ WAR FICTION


If the war in Iraq is fiction, then what are you guys complaining about?

:Commie:

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by BillyBob

What I find most distressing is that there are Americans who revel in stories like this, whether they are true or false. They would rather support our enemies than support their own country! They would rather see Americans die than have an American Victory [remember how they were anxiously counting the casualties prior to their glorious 1000 Dead American Soldiers In Iraq?]. They would rather see the rest of the world mired in despotism than see free elections taking place for the first time ever. They would rather extend our Constitutional freedoms to enemy combatants than to enforce them right here at home.

:Commie:'s Yeah BillyBob, these are the Dan Rathers, Peter Jennings, and Ward Churchills of the Secular Humanist Anti-God left in this country. All certified scumbags who should be deported to the country of their choice...

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by BillyBob

If the war in Iraq is fiction, then what are you guys complaining about?

:Commie: His quote was:US PUBLIC, WORLD, CALLS PUBLIC STORY OF IRAQ WAR FICTION It didn't say that the war is fiction; it said that the public story of the war is fiction.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Art Deco

Yeah BillyBob, these are the Dan Rathers, Peter Jennings, and Ward Churchills of the Secular Humanist Anti-God left in this country. All certified scumbags who should be deported to the country of their choice... Who you calling a secular humanist? Obviously you wouldn't know a secular humanist if he came up and whacked you in the face; (a likely scenario). I believe that I told you before that I have been a born-again Christian since probably before you were born. What does the Bible say about judging your brother? A prominent bible scholar like yourself should know that.

[BillyBob]

Hey Mopey, you actually understand Aikido????? :noway:

There might be a job for you as an interpreter in your near future! :readthis:

:chuckle:

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Michael Moorepheus

Who you calling a secular humanist? Obviously you wouldn't know a secular humanist if he came up and whacked you in the face; (a likely scenario). I believe that I told you before that I have been a born-again Christian since probably before you were born. What does the Bible say about judging your brother? A prominent bible scholar like yourself should know that.

As long as you are going to cite the Bible about judgementalism, you might wanna keep it under consideration for your own posts....

[aikido7]

Dear William Robert:

Read carefully, question authority (and when authority answers, LISTEN.

Then check to see if you still retain the discriminating intelligence to spot the difference between a "public story" and the reality on the ground.

Sometimes, the public story is a lie. Even if that story is told and re-told by your own government.






Have a happy "growing up"!!!

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by BillyBob

As long as you are going to cite the Bible about judgementalism, you might wanna keep it under consideration for your own posts.... You weren't supposed to catch that.

[BillyBob]

Why?

[Morpheus]

It isn't right when you actually catch me playing unfair.

[BillyBob]

Eh, it's no big deal. Part of the game around here.....

[Nineveh]

Was Saddam Hussein hiding in an underground bunker when he was captured, or was he caught in a house?

The Pentagon is flatly denying a report claiming the U.S. military fabricated the details of how the deposed Iraqi dictator was captured, allegedly staging the "spider hole" scenario.

"It's not true, period," Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin told WorldNetDaily.

She was referring to a story originally published by the Saudi newspaper al-Medina, and picked up by United Press International, which had quotes from someone identified as Sgt. Nadim Abou Rabeh, a former Marine who is said to have participated in the capture of Hussein.

He was quoted as saying Saddam was actually captured Friday, Dec. 12, 2003, a day earlier than the official version of the U.S. military.

"I was among the 20-man unit, including eight of Arab descent, who searched for Saddam for three days in the area of Dour near Tikrit, and we found him in a modest home in a small village and not in a hole as announced," Abou Rabeh said. "We captured him after fierce resistance during which a Marine of Sudanese origin was killed."

The UPI version continued to say Abou Rabeh said Saddam himself fired at them with a gun from a second-floor window, as forces shouted in Arabic: "You have to surrender. ... There is no point in resisting."

"Later on, a military production team fabricated the film of Saddam's capture in a hole, which was in fact a deserted well," Abou Rabeh told the paper.

WND contacted UPI about its story, and was told "United Press International published a summary of the newspaper report without seeking Pentagon comment."

The wire service has since posted an updated version, which states:

"Pentagon officials dismissed as 'ridiculous' and untrue a report that the capture of Saddam Hussein in Iraq was staged.

"A Saudi Arabian newspaper reported Tuesday that a former U.S. Marine, now living in Lebanon, claimed the Iraqi dictator had been captured earlier by a small team of troops, and forced into the now famous 'spider hole' to play a role in a film fabricated by the U.S. military to make Saddam look bad."

A Marine Corps captain contacted by WorldNetDaily was unable to confirm by press time if the Marine mentioned in the story was indeed in that branch of the armed forces. cite (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43217)

What was the motive? "to make Saddam look bad."

Really....

We went through all that trouble to make saddam look bad?

Personally, I thought all those mass graves did that job.

[Frank Ernest]

Just another lie-beral attempt to rewrite history in their own image and likeness. :vomit:

There are no straws left for the drowning to grasp at, so they're making some up. :down:

[aikido7]

Once Upon a Time, in a Galaxy Far, Far Away....

Those who read news reports that didn't make it to the Liberal Intelligencia News Conspiracy at the time of Saddam's capture were informed of facts pointing to Saddam's capture by Iraqi desert tribesmen on the CIA payroll who were then paid to hand him over so that the United States would look good.

As you might remember, at that time Bush needed some good news to obfuscate the obviously deteriorating turn of events in Iraq.

I said it then and I said it now.

[BillyBob]

Commie.

[Nineveh]

The published claim that Saddam Hussein's capture in a "spider hole" was staged by the U.S. military continues to fall apart, as the Marine Corps has no record of the purported former Marine making the allegation.

As WorldNetDaily reported, a Saudi newspaper printed a story with someone claiming to be a former Marine who participated in the capture of Saddam Hussein.

Named as Sgt. Nadim Abou Rabeh, the man said to be in Lebanon claimed Saddam was caught in a house, not an underground bunker, a day before the military has maintained publicly.

"Later on, a military production team fabricated the film of Saddam's capture in a hole, which was in fact a deserted well," Abou Rabeh told al-Medina, according to a version picked up by United Press International.

"I spoke with our people at Manpower this morning in regards [to Nadim Abou Rabeh]," Marine Capt. Gabrielle Chapin at the Pentagon told WorldNetDaily. "We do not have anyone in the system by the name reported."

Earlier, the Pentagon flatly denied the report of the staged capture.

"It's not true, period," Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin told WorldNetDaily. cite (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43232)

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Art Deco
Yeah BillyBob, these are the Dan Rathers, Peter Jennings, and Ward Churchills of the Secular Humanist Anti-God left in this country. All certified scumbags who should be deported to the country of their choice... You misspelled "rounded up, shot, and thrown into unmarked mass graves"... :chuckle:

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Nineveh The published claim that Saddam Hussein's capture in a "spider hole" was staged by the U.S. military continues to fall apart, as the Marine Corps has no record of the purported former Marine making the allegation.

As WorldNetDaily reported, a Saudi newspaper printed a story with someone claiming to be a former Marine who participated in the capture of Saddam Hussein.

Named as Sgt. Nadim Abou Rabeh, the man said to be in Lebanon claimed Saddam was caught in a house, not an underground bunker, a day before the military has maintained publicly.

"Later on, a military production team fabricated the film of Saddam's capture in a hole, which was in fact a deserted well," Abou Rabeh told al-Medina, according to a version picked up by United Press International.

"I spoke with our people at Manpower this morning in regards [to Nadim Abou Rabeh]," Marine Capt. Gabrielle Chapin at the Pentagon told WorldNetDaily. "We do not have anyone in the system by the name reported."

Earlier, the Pentagon flatly denied the report of the staged capture.

"It's not true, period," Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin told WorldNetDaily. cite




:doh:

[drRansom]

Originally posted by Nineveh
"I spoke with our people at Manpower this morning in regards [to Nadim Abou Rabeh]," Marine Capt. Gabrielle Chapin at the Pentagon told WorldNetDaily. "We do not have anyone in the system by the name reported."

Earlier, the Pentagon flatly denied the report of the staged capture.

"It's not true, period," Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin told WorldNetDaily.


Gee, the Pentagon is actually denying this? How shocking...

:rolleyes:

[BillyBob]

You don't expect then to admit to something that isn't true, do you? :doh:

[drbrumley]

I wouldnt expect them to admit to anything.

[BillyBob]

I see, so the fact that the Pentagon denies something ever happened automatically means that it actually did happen? :freak:

[drbrumley]

Didnt say that. Just history proves me correct.

Kind of like the boy who cried wolf. They feed us crap and when they do say something true, people usually dont believe them.

As for the subject, it doesn't matter how Saddam got captured in my opinion. But if he indeed put up a fight, and they did lie about it, it would just go to show truth is indeed fiction to these folks.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by drbrumley

As for the subject, it doesn't matter how Saddam got captured in my opinion.

Exactly!

But if he indeed put up a fight, and they did lie about it, it would just go to show truth is indeed fiction to these folks.

OK, but what if Saddam did put up a fight? The only people who care would be our enemies, there is no reason to give them any insentive to continue fighting us. Even if the spider hole story is false, it is the best thing to tell Saddam's followers in order to demoralize them. Conversely, this new story that Saddam put up a fight might be disinformation originating from the enemy designed to boost their moral while the spider hole story was factual all along.

[aikido7]

Clearly, the spider hole tale was not the best story to tell to "demoralize" the Ba'athists.

It hasn't worked so far. Maybe they need a little more liberation and democracy.

That'll teach 'em!

[Delmar]

Originally posted by aikido7

Clearly, the spider hole tale was not the best story to tell to "demoralize" the Ba'athists.

It hasn't worked so far. Maybe they need a little more liberation and democracy.

That'll teach 'em! It will be a start!

[aikido7]

When does all this begin?

[Nineveh]

aikido7,
I just have to ask... did you believe Dan Rather, too?

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by drbrumley

Didnt say that. Just history proves me correct.
Then you do "say that."

Kind of like the boy who cried wolf. They feed us crap and when they do say something true, people usually dont believe them.
:darwinsm: Now you're emphasizing what you "didn't say that."

As for the subject, it doesn't matter how Saddam got captured in my opinion. But if he indeed put up a fight, and they did lie about it, it would just go to show truth is indeed fiction to these folks.
:darwinsm: You "didn't say that", then you "say that", then you emphatically defend "didn't say that", then you say "it doesn't matter", then you say that what may not be the truth is the truth and your favorite whipping boys are liars. :doh:
DAN RATHER ALERT!

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by aikido7

When does all this begin?

3 months ago with a free election. You know, the one where you claimed no more than 3 million Iraqis would participate, remember????????

:chuckle:

[Frank Ernest]

I see the :Commie: Lickspittles have taken a breather. :D

[BillyBob]

Yes, it's rather peaceful this weekend. :cloud9:

I notice that Skeppie hasn't posted in quite a while, I wonder what happened to that little commie???

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :BillyBob:

Yes, it's rather peaceful this weekend. :cloud9:

I notice that Skeppie hasn't posted in quite a while, I wonder what happened to that little commie???
Maybe his record player suffered a malfunction. :eek:

[drbrumley]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

Then you do "say that."

:darwinsm: Now you're emphasizing what you "didn't say that."

:darwinsm: You "didn't say that", then you "say that", then you emphatically defend "didn't say that", then you say "it doesn't matter", then you say that what may not be the truth is the truth and your favorite whipping boys are liars. :doh:
DAN RATHER ALERT!

Wow, delusion sets in. Now I'm all over the map in what I said. Sheesh. I do hope your reading comprehension gets better.

[elected4ever]

The story seems to be a fabrication. Two clues. The so called Marines name and the place the story originated. I don't believe it. Fact is Saddam is captured. It is just a fabrication to save face.

[BillyBob]

I agree,e4e. What is distressing is how anxious certain posters here were to believe it.

[drbrumley]

No doubt.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
I notice that Skeppie hasn't posted in quite a while, I wonder what happened to that little commie??? Perhaps a Christian killed him...

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Gerald

Perhaps a Christian killed him...

Maybe the same ones that beat the crap out of you! :eek:

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Maybe the same ones that beat the crap out of you! :eek: Doubtful. I've kept up with what happened to those guys. Something of a hobby of mine.

Two are in prison and one offed himself. The rest are pretty normal.