Conspiracy Theory

[Guest Frank_Nabbit]

http://www.rense.com/general45/roots.htm

 

Pretty Weak Argument, but consider it anyway...

 

And here's another conspiracy theory:

 

Saddam Was Not Captured -

He Was 'Rescued'

Opinion

From IZAKOVIC

[email protected]

12-14-3

 

Hi Jeff...

It is my believe that Saddam was not captured.

He was rescued by his principals because his life was in danger. The U.S. kept to its obligations and honored this part of their contract.

Everybody knows that Saddam was a U.S. creation from his start back in the '70s, from the time he was in Egypt. He was created to fill the power spot and contain Iran, but later on got loose making his oil unacessible to U.S. So he had to be disciplined by Bush I and the food for oil drill.

Few days ago, it become clear that Russians knew about the buying out of Saddam's staff by U.S. prior to invasion. (Patrick Dillon's September 8, 2003 interview with Jeff in which he detailed his

face- to-face videotaped meeting with an Iraqi officer who watched about a dozen Mercedes drive out on to the Baghdad airport runway and directly up and into US military transport planes - ed)

Saddam did nothing about it, meaning that he already was not in charge. The resulting disruption of Iraqi command structure was heavy so U.S. just walked into Baghdad and democratized the local oil.

Then it become clear that not everybody was happy with this solution and resistance emerged. As it kept getting stronger, it become apparent that it is a genuine resistance, not burdened by Saddam's legacy, and that, sooner or later, local traitors will turn on him. God knows that even without this, Saddam was not a particularly beloved leader. Even his wife allegedly helped in the search.

So, Saddam had to be transferred to more secure place that has as low media potential as possible.

A court in Hague would be such place.

It is secure, and the fact that it is full of similar characters that are, because of the legal proceedings that last for years resolving nothing, of no interest to public any more, such as Milosevich, it is probable that he also will soon become forgotten to.

IZAKOVIC

http://www.deepspace4.com

[Firestarter 0]

"My name is Morris Fletcher. I work inside Area 51. I assumed Mulder's identity through a warp in the space-time continuum. Trust me, little man, I ain't him. Oh, I love you guys. I really do. I mean, you're the Lone Gunmen, aren't you? You guys are my heroes. I mean, look at this crap you print."

"We uncover the truth."

"The truth. Well, see, that's what's so great about you monkeys. Not only do you believe this horse pucky that we create, you broadcast it as well. I mean, look at this. There is no Saddam Hussein. This guy's name is John Gillnitz. We found him doing dinner theater in Tulsa. Did a mean King and I. Plays good ethnics."

"You're trying to say that Saddam Hussein's a government plant?"

"I'm saying I invented the guy. We set him up in '79. He rattles his saber whenever we need a good distraction. Ah... if you boys only knew how many of your stories I dreamed up while sitting on the pot."

"What stories?"

"I'm sorry, Melvin. That's classified."

- Dreamland II, The X-Files

[Guest MikeSC]

Saddam Was Not Captured -

He Was 'Rescued'

Opinion

From IZAKOVIC

[email protected]

12-14-3

 

Hi Jeff...

It is my believe that Saddam was not captured.

He was rescued by his principals because his life was in danger. The U.S. kept to its obligations and honored this part of their contract.

Everybody knows that Saddam was a U.S. creation from his start back in the '70s, from the time he was in Egypt. He was created to fill the power spot and contain Iran, but later on got loose making his oil unacessible to U.S. So he had to be disciplined by Bush I and the food for oil drill.

Few days ago, it become clear that Russians knew about the buying out of Saddam's staff by U.S. prior to invasion. (Patrick Dillon's September 8, 2003 interview with Jeff in which he detailed his face- to-face videotaped meeting with an Iraqi officer who watched about a dozen Mercedes drive out on to the Baghdad airport runway and directly up and into US military transport planes - ed)

Saddam did nothing about it, meaning that he already was not in charge. The resulting disruption of Iraqi command structure was heavy so U.S. just walked into Baghdad and democratized the local oil.

Then it become clear that not everybody was happy with this solution and resistance emerged. As it kept getting stronger, it become apparent that it is a genuine resistance, not burdened by Saddam's legacy, and that, sooner or later, local traitors will turn on him. God knows that even without this, Saddam was not a particularly beloved leader. Even his wife allegedly helped in the search.

So, Saddam had to be transferred to more secure place that has as low media potential as possible.

A court in Hague would be such place.

It is secure, and the fact that it is full of similar characters that are, because of the legal proceedings that last for years resolving nothing, of no interest to public any more, such as Milosevich, it is probable that he also will soon become forgotten to.

IZAKOVIC

 

Well, I feel a little less intelligent having wasted two minutes reading this.

-=Mike

...No, I don't blame the poster for this idiotic theory. I blame the author for this idiotic theory

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

F*ck you all.

 

I thought my conspiracy theory was decent...

[Guest Frank_Nabbit]

F*ck you all.

 

I thought my conspiracy theory was decent...

Please review

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

This would be a good place for a Triumph joke.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

F*ck you all.

 

I thought my conspiracy theory was decent...

What that this is all an elaborate plan to get Mumia out of jail?

[Guest Frank_Nabbit]

And what'll think of the hair roots argument?

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

That's a BS conspiracy theory, here's what really happened: Hussein actually fled to Cuba, staged a coup and took power from Castro, and then stuffed him in that hole to get caught. So while the US has finally taken down Fidel, Hussein is now ruling Cuba with an iron fist.

[Guest MikeSC]

And what'll think of the hair roots argument?

Well, the moment the Kenneth Schuler School of Cosmetology opinion is desired in discussions of international news, we'll know where to turn.

-=Mike

..."Like, it's TOTALLY not Saddam. He's, like, TOTALLY dreamy and stuff. I mean, OH MY GOD!"

 

...As an aside, I'm glad I don't get this Rense moron's radio show. His site is a big enough joke as is.

[Guest Frank_Nabbit]

That's a BS conspiracy theory, here's what really happened: Hussein actually fled to Cuba, staged a coup and took power from Castro, and then stuffed him in that hole to get caught. So while the US has finally taken down Fidel, Hussein is now ruling Cuba with an iron fist.

I like it. Art Bell would be proud.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

F*ck you all.

 

I thought my conspiracy theory was decent...

Please review

From the Saddam thread:

 

What conspiracy? It's all true -- take your head out of the clouds.

 

Hmmm, Saddam gets captured right after we find out about this.

 

Here's one paragraph from the article:

 

But the company apparently didn't profit from the discrepancy, according to officials who briefed reporters Thursday on condition of anonymity. The problem, the officials said, was that Halliburton may have paid a Kuwaiti subcontractor too much for the gasoline in the first place.

 

Now, since Dick Cheney used to work at Halliburton (Mike SC, I think we just found our next "Did you know...?" line), it only makes sense to me that Halliburton was laundering money through the Kuwaiti "supplier" in order to pay off Saddam and have him give up -- all less than a year away from Election '04.

 

Saddam will spend 30 years going to trial in some International Court, die lavishly in exile somewhere before he's ever convicted of jay-walking, let alone genocide, and Cheney, who used to work at Halliburton in case you didn’t know, gets a nice, fat end-of-the-year bonus.

 

It all makes sense to me...

[Guest SideFXs]

OK, Frank, this is what I know to be true:

 

Saddam is the leader of the Ancient Sumerian culture found on Planet-X. He and his followers came to Earth almost 1,000 years ago, after Planet-X's last elliptical pass around the Sun. It was predicted to have a near Earth pass last May 2003. However due to a powerful cloaking device, its pass was undetected.

 

Recent extreme weather throughout the world and unusual solar activity, and the inevitable nomination of Howard Dean, are strong evidence that the Sumerian's wish to punish the United States and its current leader.

 

Because the United States interfered with Saddam's destiny, it will be punished by the Sumerians. On its return pass around the Sun, the beings, on Planet-X, will remote view, with the U.N. and direct its forces to invade the United States. The weapons of mass destruction, hidden by Hans Blix and some members of the U.N. security council, will be unleashed by these forces and the nuclear destruction of Florida will occur.

[Swift Terror 0]

(looks like SideFXs has been dipping into his pharmacy cabinet)

 

Art Bell Forever, George Noory Never!

 

I think Ed Asner is involved--he wants to get Saddam to Hollywood so he can get a scoop and produce the TV movie.

[Guest Boo_Bradley]

Coast to Coast has been pretty shitty lately topic wise

 

Thurs - Miracle Mushrooms ooooh!

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I thought this was going to be one of those "We didn't really capture Saddam, just one of his doubles".

 

Personally, I think its super convenient that people were starting to get on Bush for still being in Iraq and losing soldiers every day, and then we magically find Saddam. Everyone is all happy that we found Saddam and now I think people are thinking that Bush will pull the troops out of Iraq but thats obviously not the case. I think this might piss people off more in the long run, but I think that theres another capture lying in the woods (Read: The Government knows where Bin Laden is and is just waiting for the right time coughelectionyearcough to find him) if it ever gets that bad.

[Vyce 0]

Personally, I think its super convenient that people were starting to get on Bush for still being in Iraq and losing soldiers every day, and then we magically find Saddam. Everyone is all happy that we found Saddam and now I think people are thinking that Bush will pull the troops out of Iraq but thats obviously not the case. I think this might piss people off more in the long run, but I think that theres another capture lying in the woods (Read: The Government knows where Bin Laden is and is just waiting for the right time coughelectionyearcough to find him) if it ever gets that bad.

A better ploy by Bush & co. would be if they know already where the WMD are - and they bust them out right before the election.

 

As for UBL - don't we pretty much KNOW what country he's hiding out in? We just aren't authorized to go in and get him.

[tommytomlin 0]

Yeah, outlandish conspiracy theories are great. Like that one that's about America giving arms and propping up a dictator named Saddam Hussein until he went a bit wacko in the late 1980's. Or that one about the U.S giving arms to that dude who was behind the whole 9/11 thing way back when because he and his mates were fighting Russians. Man these wackos come up with some STUFF!

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Personally, I think its super convenient that people were starting to get on Bush for still being in Iraq and losing soldiers every day, and then we magically find Saddam.  Everyone is all happy that we found Saddam and now I think people are thinking that Bush will pull the troops out of Iraq but thats obviously not the case. I think this might piss people off more in the long run, but I think that theres another capture lying in the woods (Read: The Government knows where Bin Laden is and is just waiting for the right time coughelectionyearcough to find him) if it ever gets that bad.

A better ploy by Bush & co. would be if they know already where the WMD are - and they bust them out right before the election.

 

As for UBL - don't we pretty much KNOW what country he's hiding out in? We just aren't authorized to go in and get him.

I think they would have busted out the WMD by now if they actually knew where they were. Its obvious that there were never any to start with. And if they somehow found some WMD now, it would make them look stupid for not being able to find them after searching for over 9 months.

[Guest Cerebus]

Now, since Dick Cheney used to work at Halliburton

Oh shit are you serious? To get that kind of crazy incriminating info you must have gone to some sort of independent media site right? We all know that such a horribly damaging piece of info on Bush & Co. could never be allowed into the Capitalist Military-Industrial Propoganada Machine right?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RIGHT??

 

Oh and GET OUTTA TOWN!!!

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Yeah, outlandish conspiracy theories are great. Like that one that's about America giving arms and propping up a dictator named Saddam Hussein until he went a bit wacko in the late 1980's. Or that one about the U.S giving arms to that dude who was behind the whole 9/11 thing way back when because he and his mates were fighting Russians. Man these wackos come up with some STUFF!

Yeah, and the U.S. teaming up with Stalin -- that's a real doozy.

 

*yawn*...

[Justice 0]

Yeah, outlandish conspiracy theories are great. Like that one that's about America giving arms and propping up a dictator named Saddam Hussein until he went a bit wacko in the late 1980's.

We propped him up? Um, we did send him a small amount of weapons, but we didn't support anything he did until Iran invaded Iraq after Iraq's falled offensive aganist them. Please get your facts straight.

 

Or that one about the U.S giving arms to that dude who was behind the whole 9/11 thing way back when because he and his mates were fighting Russians. Man these wackos come up with some STUFF!

 

And it was British and Aussies who trained and saved Ho-Chi Minh from dying back in WWII, yet we don't blame them for Vietnam.

[Vern Gagne 0]

The CIA didn't train or supply Bin Laden. He had the financial resources to supply his own fighters and weapons.

[Vern Gagne 0]

ignore

[tommytomlin 0]

Or that one about the U.S giving arms to that dude who was behind the whole 9/11 thing way back when because he and his mates were fighting Russians. Man these wackos come up with some STUFF!

 

And it was British and Aussies who trained and saved Ho-Chi Minh from dying back in WWII, yet we don't blame them for Vietnam.

Ho Chi Minh and Osama Bin Laden are just a LITTLE bit different. Ho Chi was fighting for his country's independence from the French, the Japanese and later the Americans. Australia and Britain supported him because he opposed the Japanese. I normally think that type of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' thinking is idiotic, and creates more problems than it solves (see America, United States of), but it was WORLD WAR TWO. Australia was at a very serious risk of losing South East Asia completely. If there was ever an excuse to say 'Oh, this guy is a communist guerilla insurgent leader, but he hates the Japs so let's give him stuff', it was THEN. And how exactly can Ho Chi Minh, and therefore Australia and Britain be blamed for Vietnam? What about the French, whose colonial ambitions created the conflict in the first place? Or the Japanese? Or the Russians or, gee, maybe those Americans who spent billions continuing a war they were never going to win for a supposed strategic interest? And who (along with others in the international community I'll admit), turned a blind eye to the actions of the Khmer Rouge across the border until years later?

 

My point about Sadaam may have been exaggerated, but at least it was grounded somewhere in reality.

[Justice 0]

Or that one about the U.S giving arms to that dude who was behind the whole 9/11 thing way back when because he and his mates were fighting Russians. Man these wackos come up with some STUFF!

 

And it was British and Aussies who trained and saved Ho-Chi Minh from dying back in WWII, yet we don't blame them for Vietnam.

Ho Chi Minh and Osama Bin Laden are just a LITTLE bit different. Ho Chi was fighting for his country's independence from the French, the Japanese and later the Americans. Australia and Britain supported him because he opposed the Japanese. I normally think that type of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' thinking is idiotic, and creates more problems than it solves (see America, United States of), but it was WORLD WAR TWO. Australia was at a very serious risk of losing South East Asia completely. If there was ever an excuse to say 'Oh, this guy is a communist guerilla insurgent leader, but he hates the Japs so let's give him stuff', it was THEN. And how exactly can Ho Chi Minh, and therefore Australia and Britain be blamed for Vietnam? What about the French, whose colonial ambitions created the conflict in the first place? Or the Japanese? Or the Russians or, gee, maybe those Americans who spent billions continuing a war they were never going to win for a supposed strategic interest? And who (along with others in the international community I'll admit), turned a blind eye to the actions of the Khmer Rouge across the border until years later?

 

My point about Sadaam may have been exaggerated, but at least it was grounded somewhere in reality.

Indeed, and a Soviet move into Afganistan put incredible danger on the Middle East oil fields and really become a threat to the entire West's way of life. Of course, you probably didn't know that so I'll let it slide.

 

Ho Chi Minh and Osama are very different? Not really. Both are thought of as freedom fighters (Osama fought off the Russians; that's fighting for one's independance?). Both have killed many innocents via terrorist attacks (Guerilla attacks in Saigon and other such things), both have probably hurt their people more than they intended to save them. Osama was of a vital interest to us because he was fighting the Russian which would stop them from gaining a valuable striking position to take the Middle East and their oil-fields. Australia and Britain supported Ho Chi Minh (And saved his life as well) because he was fighting the Japanese who were threatening to possibly invade Australia. Both of them were completely abandoned when the war ended (Though hostilities between Osama and the US actually sprung up when the US was asked to send military help to Saudi Arabia, though it is often mistaken for our support in Afganistan). They are very very similar. You are just being a hypocrit because you THINK that you guys were more justified when in actuality both moves were justified: Neither of them at the time had shown any true hatred for the West. This wasn't "The enemy of my enemy is my friend", they thought they had an ally. Both decisions by both countries were completely justified. If you took a guy to a wrestling match who then went on to kill 20 people years later because of that wrestling match, are you to blame for him? Were you a conspirator? No. Your logic doesn't add up, but again, that's no surprise from you.

 

War we could never win? Bwuahahahahaha... Dude, the only reason we lost was because of the media at home. Have you ever actually READ anything about the Vietnam War besides what you get in the local party dispatches? We could have stayed there for as long as we liked; the NVA did not have a chance of uprooting us. But whatever.

 

No, the whole Saddam/Weapons thing ISN'T grounded in reality because people fail to realize that we didn't give him that much. We didn't give him tanks, guns, planes, missiles,artillery, APCs, trucks, or anything that really built up his army. It's just like the British saving Ho Chi Minh.

[Guest SideFXs]

Yeah, outlandish conspiracy theories are great. Like that one that's about America giving arms and propping up a dictator named Saddam Hussein until he went a bit wacko in the late 1980's. Or that one about the U.S giving arms to that dude who was behind the whole 9/11 thing way back when because he and his mates were fighting Russians. Man these wackos come up with some STUFF!

Its easy to be critical, with 20/20 Hind-sight. Since you libs continue to use this argument, I suppose it bares repeating that the Iranians held Americans captive for 444 days and the Soviets were our mortal enemy.

[tommytomlin 0]

My point about Osama and Saddam wasn't to criticise U.S policy (my point about Vietnam, on the other hand...), it was merely to show that sometimes conspiracy theories aren't as crazy and outlandish as you may think. I never said the U.S arming the Mujahideen wasn't justified.

 

And as for the point about the U.S being able to win the Vietnam war at anytime, I still think it's bullshit. You acknowledge the role of the media in the U.S' decision to pull out, but then say they 'could have stayed there for as long as they like'. Yes, they could have, but that wouldn't have been winning the war. The media would still have been reporting U.S casualties, North Vietnamese successes and U.S errors like the My Lai massacre. You're acknowledging the role of the media in one part of the sentance and then ignoring it in the next. The U.S military and economy could have easily supported decades more U.S involvement in Vietnam, but the media and the American people wouldn't have put up with it. The NVA mightn't have had a hope in hell of defeating the U.S, but that still doesn't mean the U.S could win the war.

 

 

Oh and SideFX, why am I a liberal? Does every conservative or moderate have to share the same views on Vietnam? Why does everyone on this board have to be categorised into two easily distinguishable categories?

[Guest MikeSC]

Yeah, outlandish conspiracy theories are great. Like that one that's about America giving arms and propping up a dictator named Saddam Hussein until he went a bit wacko in the late 1980's. Or that one about the U.S giving arms to that dude who was behind the whole 9/11 thing way back when because he and his mates were fighting Russians. Man these wackos come up with some STUFF!

You know what's REALLY funny?

 

When people bring up thoroughly irrelevant points to try and "Get" the President?

 

I can beat you, though:

 

Why no questions as to whether the massive debt Iraq owed them was the real reason behind France, Germany, and Russia's refusal to go along with the attack?

 

They had no problem passing resolutions and didn't press that hard to remove sanctions.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Ho Chi Minh and Osama Bin Laden are just a LITTLE bit different.

Not really.

Ho Chi was fighting for his country's independence from the French, the Japanese and later the Americans.

Actually, his massive infiltration of the South and his refusal to allow legitimately fair elections did a lot to keep us there.

Australia and Britain supported him because he opposed the Japanese. I normally think that type of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' thinking is idiotic, and creates more problems than it solves (see America, United States of), but it was WORLD WAR TWO.

Ah, situational ethics.

Australia was at a very serious risk of losing South East Asia completely. If there was ever an excuse to say 'Oh, this guy is a communist guerilla insurgent leader, but he hates the Japs so let's give him stuff', it was THEN. And how exactly can Ho Chi Minh, and therefore Australia and Britain be blamed for Vietnam? What about the French, whose colonial ambitions created the conflict in the first place? Or the Japanese? Or the Russians or, gee, maybe those Americans who spent billions continuing a war they were never going to win for a supposed strategic interest? And who (along with others in the international community I'll admit), turned a blind eye to the actions of the Khmer Rouge across the border until years later?

And what, exactly, could we do about Cambodia?

 

You know what I never really understood --- you can oppose U.S policy in Vietnam all day long. Why did some of the protestors PRAISE Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Cong? The VC flag was flown at quite a few protests.

 

There is a difference between opposing a policy you don't like and supporting an EVIL group.

My point about Sadaam may have been exaggerated, but at least it was grounded somewhere in reality.

No, it wasn't. You can't blame people for the actions of their allies. It'd be like blaming the U.S for the atrocities of the U.S.S.R post-WWII.

-=Mike