Saddam Hussein arrested

Originally posted by FULCRUM

Originally posted by Quicksilver
thats were that can bite or mame the guards.

No,

Its there for torture..

Correct english term for the method is "Sensory Depravation"..

google it..

All that i find tells that this will turn subject insane and paranoid.

I hate to say it, but FULCRUM is right. it is a method of torture.

Jez....
May I direct you to a very good topic/thread that Satyr began?

"Saddam and the Kurds"
Link:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Perhaps you can post your comments there?



regards
seekerof

Yeah, I think it's great that we caught him and all. I just think that it's kinda a coincidence that we caught him right when the Presidential campaign season is starting. He was probably being held by US forces the whole time and then was "captured" at an oppurtune moment to make Bush look good.

Also, now that they've found him maybe they'll find some WMDs. I mean, that's the reason we went to Iraq in the first place.

They may have captured Saddam but, they haven't justified the war yet.

Originally posted by NotTooHappy

They may have captured Saddam but, they haven't justified the war yet.

Yeah,

Only thing that really bothers me about is just that.

No real reason have been given, only lies.

So as they lie they could be hiding anything.

Like a plan to take over the world.

Did anyone else see irony in naming it operation "red dawn"?

Originally posted by Johnny

Originally posted by forsakenwayfarer
hey asshole! get off the site if you dont like a little critisicm when youre DEAD WRONG. you twat. you people really do make me sick

Man, I had to turn off the censors to know what you called me...

I thought it would be worse.

OKAY, may I apologise myself?
I have written what I knew, if you treat this as incorrect, it's fine with me.
DON'T say I'm dead wrong and DON'T throw me out of here.
And please, I respect you, don't call me an A$$HOLE!

You think that I am a leader of Saddam's fanclub up here?
Why send troops, loose lifes of brave soldiers and then have to pay a hell lot of money for keeping peace in a destroyed country, where you are not wanted, just as the former dictator?
You know that there were easier ways to get rid of him?

Too bad he's offline.

[Edited on 14-12-2003 by Johnny]

sorry about that, i was adressing fulcrum, not you.

Yeah, a plan to take over the world or, a plan to rob other countrys of their natural resources. One or the other.

THere is a clear objective in teh war. DISARM Saddam and free teh people in Iraq

Originally posted by beergoggles
Did anyone else see irony in naming it operation "red dawn"?

YES, I noticed that as well!!!

One thing I do not enjoy hearing from any News Station is a reference to "RED DAWN". There should still be plenty of names to give Military Ops without having to use ones that are linked with a "Successful Secret Invasion of U.S. Soil". I'm glad I was able to hear the rest of the details cause had I caught just a snippit without the full report I might have been a bit nervous!

Originally posted by Quicksilver
THere is a clear objective in teh war. DISARM Saddam and free teh people in Iraq

No,

This is the objective:

It was evident a year ago that Iraq's WMDs were at most a secondary reason for regime change in Iraq. So was the destruction of Saddam's admittedly dreadful dictatorship.
America's primary reason was much more ambitious: to turn Iraq into an American strategic asset,
and a starting point for the democratisation of the Arab and Islamic worlds.

The New World Order..

In which everything is dull and democratic..
(supposedly..)

Originally posted by Seekerof
Jez....
May I direct you to a very good topic/thread that Satyr began?

"Saddam and the Kurds"
Link:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Perhaps you can post your comments there?

regards
seekerof

Thanks I hadn't seen his post earlier

Originally posted by FULCRUM
Well i might just come over there and capture Bushes
* ass..

Come and try...I'll laugh when the Secret Service puts a slug though your head.

i hope the trial is televised




who's next Iran?

We need to turn him loose into LOVING arms of his people then you idiots will see how BELOVED he was by them. I would bet he would be torn apart

where did you find taht quote Fulcrum and who was it by?

Originally posted by Quicksilver
where did you find taht quote Fulcrum and who was it by?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There, full story..

Originally posted by darklanser
Do you think someone took out a little pent up frustration on 'ol Saddam??? (not that he didn't have it coming !) I know stuff like this happens sometimes in police arrests. The suspect just slipped and hit his head your honor. I swear.

EDIT* If you look at www.drudgereport.com... right now, you'll see the same pic as above...but it's cropped just below the "wound". Funny, I thought Matt would be on this bit of news.

[Edited on 12-14-2003 by darklanser]

funny that as the pictures of him AFTER he is all cleaned up and shaven its not there anymore!

could it have jsut been....oh i dont know...DIRT???

i'm just throwing in a guess here. i dont know either way...just dont want to give those with an axe to grind to find soemthing else to glom onto to accuse america of being "heavy handed" in the way they handled saddam.

Prankmonkey is being his normal objective self.

Red Dirt ???

Just as likely an airbrushed photo.

Not that I'm bothered one way or the other.I have no illusion as to how undisciplined US troops are.

[Edited on 14-12-2003 by John bull 1]

Originally posted by John bull 1
Prankmonkey is being his normal objective self.

Red Dirt ???

Just as likely an airbrushed photo.

ok then genius explain why its there when he's fresh out of the ground but not after he's cleaned up???

do YOU have a more logical way to explain how a wound might heal in a matter of a few hours??? since you are rather convinced it is a wound, please, enlighten me, how did it heal so fast???


and answer me a couple of question while you're at it.

are you sure this wound (if it is one) was caused by the troops? how do you know if it didnt happen some other way? if you think the troops did it do honestly think they'd only take one shot at him? if they ewre gonna beat him they would have done it right on the spot or outright killed him and claimed he was going for his pistol (he did have a pistol).

there are just too many questions that need to be answered before i accept this as a wound and that the troops did it.

i guess proof doesnt matter as long its not an out right accusation but an implication...right?

[Edited on 14-12-2003 by ThePrankMonkey]

So what?



Its like not they beated the living shyte out of him..



(Russians would have done that.. maybe even shot him and then just said: he resisted..)