kipperthefrog Posted March 10, 2005 Share Posted March 10, 2005 -STORY- It wouldn't surprise ME any if it WAS made up. In fact, since thae media outlets are owned by rich people who are sypathetic to Bu$h, I almost expect everything on the news to be a crappy lie. HOWEVER, if the saddam capture WAS faked, why didn't they fake the Bin Laden capture too? I say the saddam capture was real. Edit, maybie "bin Laden on the loose" is an exuse to grab other countries, I dont know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted March 10, 2005 Share Posted March 10, 2005 Originally posted by kipperthefrog HOWEVER, if the saddam capture WAS faked, why didn't they fake the Bin Laden capture too? I say the saddam capture was real. Because should Osama attack again... it'd look rather bad for the Government. And yes, he's an excuse to take action against other countries. I'm just surprised we haven't had obsession over what happens to Saddam, you'd think after all that fuss they'd allow us to know what's going on with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted March 10, 2005 Share Posted March 10, 2005 That Marine is saying that Saddam was captured by a Marine unit the day prior to his official capture. I found this on another forum and I am not the author, so take it for what it's worth: First of all, there were no major Marine units in Iraq at the time that Saddam was captured. The last Marines to leave Iraq left at the end of September '03 (I was in the last Marine convoy to leave Iraq, trust me on this one). Marines did not re-enter Iraq en masse until January of '04. Second, I tried searching the Marine Locator on Marine Online, this guy has no account (something that's been required for a few years now). Third, I tried searching the Marine Corps Uniform Board tool for looking up who has been approved for a Combat Action Ribbon (something he would have received had he, you know, ever been shot at or shot at someone), his name does not show up (tool located here: https://lnweb1.manpower.usmc.mil/ma...tion.nsf/search). Fourth, I looked up who was killed around that time here: http://icasualties.org/oif/BY_DOD.aspx and couldn't find either anyone of Sudanese descent, nor any Marines (goes back to my first point) killed around that time. This guy is making it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wassup Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 It doesn't add up. If the story was fake, why would the American government come up with such a hum-bum story of Saddam's capture? You would think that they would make up something more dramatic, such as Saddam being holed up in a heavily fortified palace with machine guns and tanks. Instead, the story is Saddam peacefully surrendering in a hobbit hole, which is probably the true version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_hill987 Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 Originally posted by wassup It doesn't add up. If the story was fake, why would the American government come up with such a hum-bum story of Saddam's capture? You would think that they would make up something more dramatic, such as Saddam being holed up in a heavily fortified palace with machine guns and tanks. Instead, the story is Saddam peacefully surrendering in a hobbit hole, which is probably the true version. Because if they made up a story like that no one would believe them. Anyway, After watching farenheight 9/11 I'm not sure what to believe, but i don't believe anything the government (US or UK) says anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 Originally posted by wassup It doesn't add up. If the story was fake, why would the American government come up with such a hum-bum story of Saddam's capture? You would think that they would make up something more dramatic, such as Saddam being holed up in a heavily fortified palace with machine guns and tanks. Instead, the story is Saddam peacefully surrendering in a hobbit hole, which is probably the true version. You just answered your own question in that paragraph. The big and dramatic capture would seem too far fake, and instead this anti-climatic capture would seem real in comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leper Messiah Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 Originally posted by jon_hill987 Because if they made up a story like that no one would believe them. Anyway, After watching farenheight 9/11 I'm not sure what to believe, but i don't believe anything the government (US or UK) says anymore. argh! that damn film! Its just as flawed as those it criticises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos Jack Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 Oh my.... Saddam's capture was orchestrated by a secret government black ops organization. It was totally fake. Even the President thinks it's all real. Oh and don't you all know that Osama bin Laden is an Alien super solder? He is just preparing the world for the Alien invasion in a few years. Don't you people watch the reruns of the X-Files? Marines didn't find Saddam the Army did. To be precise the Solders of the 1st Brigade, 4th Infantry Division. From Texas the Unit that replaced the Marine unit on duty there. Oh here is a link to the page with the info.. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/14/sprj.irq.main/ Oh and he was found on my B-Day:rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 argh! that damn film! Its just as flawed as those it criticises.I hardly think that Moore's brand of slightly flippant editorialising compares with SENDING A COUNTRY TO WAR UNJUSTLY, do you? Jeeze. How people can compare Moore to Bush in terms of their level of corruption is beyond me. Besides, Moore's debunked an awful lot of neo-conservative claims about F. 9/11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwing Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 Interesting. I can understand why the US military would want the peaceful surrender version out. Those sympathetic to Saddam would've loved the version posited in that article. It protrays Saddam as peacefully living in a modest village, attacked by the evil US military, and puts up a fierce resistance. Far less humiliating and more heroic than the official version. In fact, it makes me suspect that this could just as easily be a propaganda thing by Saddam sympathizers, to protray him in a better light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leper Messiah Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 Originally posted by Spider AL I hardly think that Moore's brand of slightly flippant editorialising compares with SENDING A COUNTRY TO WAR UNJUSTLY, do you? Jeeze. How people can compare Moore to Bush in terms of their level of corruption is beyond me. Besides, Moore's debunked an awful lot of neo-conservative claims about F. 9/11. well, ive been through my opinion of Moore and Farenheit 9/11 on many occaisons so please forgive me for keeping this brief rather than going into detail on it. Basically, i have nothing against Moore, ive read and enjoyed Dude, Wheres My Country and i think he's good at what he does. Farenheit 9/11 however, despite containing a lot of the same subject material as Dude, Wheres My Country turns his points into a rant with two major flaws. Firstly whereas Dude, Wheres my country dedicates an entire chapter to seeing and dealing with the opposite point of view to his, Moore makes no such undertaking in Farenheit 9/11. It is simply rant after rant, with just a couple of assertions that are a little too far out for my taste. The second thing is what is what irritated me more. Micheal Moore appeared to be suggesting that Bush was on some sort of mission to pack the young poor population of America off to war. Now before you say anything along the lines of "Of course he did, because he went to war with Iraq" please understand that im talking about a seperate issue to the start of the war. Moore is suggesting, or seems to be suggesting that since there is a war on, Bush wants to make sure it is fought by the poor people of the USA. The poor are always the ones who fight a war, it has been that way since the dawn of human conflict, it is not something unique to Bush's America, the poor volunteer for the army because they are looking at steady and relatively good pay plus possibly the chance to learn a useful trade that they dont have the oppertunity to study for at College like richer people. None of this is the doing of George W Bush, yet Moore would seem to want me to believe Bush wants to exterminate the poor youth of America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted March 29, 2005 Share Posted March 29, 2005 Originally posted by Leper Messiah The poor are always the ones who fight a war, it has been that way since the dawn of human conflict, it is not something unique to Bush's America Amongst NATO countries it is, actually, pretty unusual to have such a slanted statistics, AFAIK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.