Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

The Saddam-Capture Conspiracy Theories Begin


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1    Lionel

Lionel

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,449 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2003
  • Location:Bangalore

Posted 18 December 2003 - 12:00 PM

user posted imageThe whole Saddam saga dribbles out in bits and pieces. It now appears that Bush claimed Saddam possessed not only weapons of mass destruction but the means to lob them into U.S. cities. In a conference call with reporters on Monday, Florida's Democratic senator Bill Nelson said 75 senators got this bit of information as part of a classified briefing before last October's vote to authorize the attack on Iraq. According to a report in Florida Today, senators learned in the secret briefing that Iraq had biological and chemical weapons—including anthrax—that could be dumped on east coast cities from unmanned drones. "They have not found anything that resembles a UAV [Unmanned Aerial Vehicle] that has that capability," Nelson told the reporters. Nelson voted for the war. Meanwhile, the inevitable stories suggesting the Saddam capture was a fake are beginning to circulate. One comes from debka.com, posted December 17. Many consider Debka an Israeli intelligence site. Whether that's the case or not, it often turns up inside information about the Middle East and Central Asia that turns out to be true.

"Saddam Hussein was not in hiding; he was a prisoner," headlined Debka. The story goes on to say that Hussein was seized on November 16, and held in the hole in Adwar for at least three weeks, while his captors attempted to get the $25 million that the U.S. promised to anyone who found the fallen ruler dead or alive.

That's not the only rumor experts have had to contend with. One story making the rounds in Baghdad and Great Britain's Iraqi community concerns a photograph of two American GIs standing beside a date palm tree. The photo was supposedly taken on the day of Saddam's capture. But according to the story, any Iraqi would know that this picture was a fake, because date palms are usually harvested in the summer. In any case, unharvested dates fall off the tree before December, and even if they don't, they are brown and dry, not yellow, as they are in the photo.

Then there were questions about how the Americans could pull off such a fast DNA test to verify that they had the real Saddam.

Normally, it can take up to a month to get a DNA study done, although if you pay more money, the process can be completed in five days. On Sunday, Dr. Robert Shaler, director of the department of forensic biology in the office of the city's chief medical examiner, told Wired that he's "not surprised" by reports that Saddam had been identified through DNA in less than 24 hours. "If you have a single sample and you stop everything else you're doing, you can get it done," he said. That would occur, for example, if police have arrested a suspect and can hold him only temporarily unless DNA matches him to a serious crime.

A senior administration official at the White House acted unsurprised when he said, "I don't even know if that speculation dignifies comment."

But some are still asking questions. Why, for instance, did Hussein look so bedraggled and confused shortly after his capture? On one Arab website, a former Republican Guard officer in the village of Al-Dor, near where Saddam was captured, claimed that some believe the hole had been hit with nerve gas. Dead birds and other apparently drugged animals were found around the hideout shortly after Hussein's capture.

An official at the Pentagon said the military doesn't have chemical weapons and hasn't for decades, and stated that facts stand as they were presented in news briefings.

Told of the stories chalking up Saddam's capture as a Bush campaign ploy, an official of the Republican National Committee burst into laughter.


user posted image View: Full Article | Source: Village Voice

He who walks in another's tracks leaves no footprints. Joan Brannon

#2    Xenojjin

Xenojjin

    Midnight Shadow

  • Member
  • 2,745 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2003

  • Ride the Air

Posted 18 December 2003 - 03:02 PM

Who cares ? They probobly got him . So whats the deal with the nerve gas and stuff ?


Actually come to think of it nerve gas probobly was used . I seriously doubt america is as nice as they claim to be with their military ways .

If anyone else watched the 60 minute special that occured shortly after his capture you would have noticed an interview with a representative of the war . When asked a question on whether or not Saddam will be tortured for answers its obvious he stumbled accros his response

QUOTE
"we.... we.... dont .......we dont tor tor torture people ...were talking about...


Err ... ya . Whatever you say . I think it was done live and his obviously BS ed speach fully convinced me of the U.S. using terrorist methods removing any doubt in my mind .



Posted Image

#3    bathory

bathory

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,302 posts
  • Joined:20 Nov 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 18 December 2003 - 03:06 PM

actually torture is supposed to be a very ineffective method of interrogation, breaking their spirit and developing a level of dependence is a much better method, eg sleep deprevation is a wonderful method, stop them from sleeping and dose em up on drugs



#4    jimma

jimma

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 311 posts
  • Joined:23 Sep 2003
  • Location:PORTSMIFF

  • The Horror, Oh,The Horror

Posted 18 December 2003 - 03:19 PM

QUOTE (bathory @ Dec 18 2003, 02:06 PM)
actually torture is supposed to be a very ineffective method of interrogation, breaking their spirit and developing a level of dependence is a much better method, eg sleep deprevation is a wonderful method, stop them from sleeping and dose em up on drugs

These methods are considered torture by a lot of SF people!


#5    Blood Angel

Blood Angel

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,389 posts
  • Joined:24 Jul 2003
  • Location:.:: Classified Top Secret ::.

  • Deus Ex Conspiratio

Posted 18 December 2003 - 05:04 PM

QUOTE
An official at the Pentagon said the military doesn't have chemical weapons and hasn't for decades, and stated that facts stand as they were presented in news briefings.


Thats the biggest load of bollocks i have ever heard, remember theres a big row going on in america over nerve gas thats being destroyed? They have chem weapons the same as every other country, CS gas is a chem weapon, Tear gas the list is almost endless.

And as for saddam, how long will it be before hes brought to justice, they are still trying Milosevic, over the bosnian conflict and has anything happened yet?

Fight Win Prevail - me
No guts No Glory - me
Cadjole....i like that word, so much more sophisticated than bludgeon.
Vicious says: You are saying impudence to me! That is impudence!!!1

#6    bathory

bathory

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,302 posts
  • Joined:20 Nov 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 18 December 2003 - 10:55 PM

QUOTE
Thats the biggest load of bollocks i have ever heard, remember theres a big row going on in america over nerve gas thats being destroyed? They have chem weapons the same as every other country, CS gas is a chem weapon, Tear gas the list is almost endless


>.> i think they are refering to illegal chemical weapons.


#7    Blood Angel

Blood Angel

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,389 posts
  • Joined:24 Jul 2003
  • Location:.:: Classified Top Secret ::.

  • Deus Ex Conspiratio

Posted 19 December 2003 - 03:42 AM

And whos to say what is a legal chemical weapon? Remember when chechayn rebels took hostages in that moscow(?) theater, the russian military used a experimental nerve gas to knock out the terrorists, but ended up killing alot of the hostages. CS and Tear gas work the same as nerve gas, cs/tear attacks the lungs, ears and eyes to cause extreme distress and immobilise the victim, Nerve gas (in ALL its forms) attacks the lungs and nervous systems to kill, however their have been cases of cs and tear gas killing people. To say that the united states don't have chem weapons (other than cs/tear gas) is ludicrous, especially when they quoted "they haven't had any in decades".

Fight Win Prevail - me
No guts No Glory - me
Cadjole....i like that word, so much more sophisticated than bludgeon.
Vicious says: You are saying impudence to me! That is impudence!!!1

#8    bathory

bathory

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,302 posts
  • Joined:20 Nov 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 19 December 2003 - 04:10 AM

of course they have them, and are more than likely experimenting with them, i think he's refering to the military application of chemical weapons.

QUOTE
And whos to say what is a legal chemical weapon?

The Geneva convention? i dunno? i'm sure there's some rule book out there..

Tear Gas is not a nerve gas, its an irritant....its like calling pepper spray a nerve agent

In the cases of Tear and CS gas killing, ever considered its because someone might be allergic to it? Are you saying that Peanuts are also a nerve agent?


#9    Blood Angel

Blood Angel

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,389 posts
  • Joined:24 Jul 2003
  • Location:.:: Classified Top Secret ::.

  • Deus Ex Conspiratio

Posted 19 December 2003 - 12:11 PM

Ok the key word here is GAS, therefore its a chemical weapon,
The argue i'm trying to make here is that the US Military denys it has chemical weapons when it knows full well it still has large quantitys of nerve agents (Excluding tear/cs GAS).

Fight Win Prevail - me
No guts No Glory - me
Cadjole....i like that word, so much more sophisticated than bludgeon.
Vicious says: You are saying impudence to me! That is impudence!!!1

#10    Xenojjin

Xenojjin

    Midnight Shadow

  • Member
  • 2,745 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2003

  • Ride the Air

Posted 20 December 2003 - 01:39 AM

Im blood angels side , The US obviously has chemical weapons and is denying they have it and saying things that overall translate to something lame like

QUOTE
It depends on what you would call a chemical weapon


Im not sure where , but I know this was on the news , and it was such a half @$$ed attempt on bs it made me sick... heck , it wasnt even half @$$ed . It was  quarter @$$ . Its like saying " I didnt kick you ! I abruptly pushed you with my foot "  rolleyes.gif

And even when it comes to illegal chemical weapons , its still probobly false . The US at very least has them in test labs intended for military purposes .  

Posted Image

#11    bathory

bathory

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,302 posts
  • Joined:20 Nov 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 20 December 2003 - 03:50 AM

QUOTE
of course they have them, and are more than likely experimenting with them, i think he's refering to the military application of chemical weapons.


^ I said they would most likely have them for lab purposes

QUOTE
Ok the key word here is GAS, therefore its a chemical weapon,


sigh, when they refer to chemical weapons, they mean illegal chemical weapons...
its like how its illegal to use Dumdum bullets, there is a distinction made, if i sprayed hot steam at you, would that count as a chemical weapon? tongue.gif


It would be like an Army Spokesperson saying the Military doesn't have biological weapons andhasn't had them for a very long time, of course they have them in labs etc, but they don't use them in conflicts..


#12    Xenojjin

Xenojjin

    Midnight Shadow

  • Member
  • 2,745 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2003

  • Ride the Air

Posted 20 December 2003 - 04:01 AM

Ack , Labs intended for military purposes . That means they are probobly improving the chemical weapons for use elsewhere to make sure they don't spread uncontrollably .

The idea of them being in labs and labs only is just the bare minimum of what US has . And we are talking about illegal chemical weapons , what makes you think the US doesn't have the illegal ones ? When it comes to weapons , making them illegal is usually just a way to prevent others then the military from getting their hands on them .  

Posted Image

#13    bathory

bathory

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,302 posts
  • Joined:20 Nov 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 20 December 2003 - 04:12 AM

Labs intended for Military Purposes, doesn't necessarily mean "For use on enemies",  researching methods of protection would also be important:P
Even if they are researching how to use them effectively, it doesn't make a difference because they aren't using them for current military application.

QUOTE
When it comes to weapons , making them illegal is usually just a way to prevent others then the military from getting their hands on them .


huh? Illegal as in the Rules of war say, NO YOU CAN'T DO THAT.


#14    Xenojjin

Xenojjin

    Midnight Shadow

  • Member
  • 2,745 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2003

  • Ride the Air

Posted 20 December 2003 - 04:14 AM

1 . it doesnt mean they never will use them on the enemy , if they didn't have any idea on it they probobly would not be researching them

2 . Are you assuming the US actually follows its own rules ?  laugh.gif  laugh.gif  rolleyes.gif  

Posted Image

#15    bathory

bathory

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,302 posts
  • Joined:20 Nov 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 20 December 2003 - 04:45 AM

QUOTE
it doesnt mean they never will use them on the enemy , if they didn't have any idea on it they probobly would not be researching them


what they *Might* do in the future isn't relevant

QUOTE
Are you assuming the US actually follows its own rules ?


no, i'm simply stating for the purposes of this arguement what an illegal weapon is





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users