• Congratulations to the Class of 2024 on your results!
    Let us know how you went here
    Got a question about your uni preferences? Ask us here

Suddam Captured (1 Viewer)

Enlightened_One

King of Bullshit
Joined
Oct 28, 2003
Messages
1,105
Location
around about here - still
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
And do you ever notice. Saddam, Hitler, HImmler, Osama, none of them look like the sort of evil, tyrants you imagine. Ironic isn't it,
on TV bad guys look tough, in reality they look like real pathetic and harmless.
 

Xayma

Lacking creativity
Joined
Sep 6, 2003
Messages
5,953
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Originally posted by dezzy
......was it really live in t.v.? i mean like the capture?
No, Im not sure if they filmed the capture but there was about 15hrs between the capture and the press conference.
 

AGB

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2003
Messages
859
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
it took that long for them to be sure it was him........

they have done DNA tests, medical examinations etc and all of that sorta stuff, so that is what probably took so long
 

dezzy

Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2003
Messages
631
Location
Wollongong
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
oh ok -so they wernt doing their own free will torture be4 they announced the capture...

itz always a possibility!!!
 

freaking_out

Saddam's new life
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
6,786
Location
In an underground bunker
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
here's a good article i found about sadam's capture, from the famous independent newspaper :


Saddam's Capture Will Not Stop The Relentless Killings From Insurgents

Robert Fisk in Baghdad

15 December 2003: (The Independent) "Peace" and "reconciliation" were the patois of Downing Street and the White House yesterday. But all those hopes of a collapse of resistance are doomed. Saddam was neither the spiritual nor the political guide to the insurgency that is now claiming so many lives in Iraq - far more Iraqi than Western lives, one might add - and, however happy Messrs Bush and Blair may be at the capture of Saddam, the war goes on.

In Fallujah, in Ramadi, in other centres of Sunni power in Iraq, the anti-occupation rising will continue. The system of attacks and the frighteningly fast-growing sophistication of the insurgents is bound up with the Committee of the Faith, a group of Wahabi-based Sunni Muslims who now plan their attacks on American occupation troops between Mosul and the city of Hilla, 50 miles south of Baghdad. Even before the overthrow of the Baathist regime, these groups, permitted by Saddam in the hope that they could drain off Sunni Islamic militancy, were planning the mukawama - the resistance against foreign occupation.

The slaughter of 17 more Iraqis yesterday in a bomb attack on a police station - hours after the capture of Saddam, though the bombers could not have known that - is going to remain Iraq's bloody agenda. The Anglo-American narrative will then be more difficult to sustain. Saddam "remnants" or Saddam "loyalists" are far more difficult to sustain as enemies when they can no longer be loyal to Saddam. Their Iraqi identity will become more obvious and the need to blame "foreign" al-Qa'ida members all the greater.

Yet the repeated assertions of US infantry commanders, especially those based around Mosul and Tikrit, that most of their attackers are Iraqi rather than foreign, show that the American military command in Iraq - at least at the divisional level - knows the truth. The 82nd Airborne captain in Fallujah who told me that his men were attacked by "Syrian-backed terrorists and Iraqi freedom-fighters" was probably closer to the truth than Major Ricardo Sanchez, the US commander in Iraq, would like to believe. The war is not about Saddam but about foreign occupation.

Indeed, professional soldiers have been pointing this out for a long time. Yesterday, for example, a sergeant in the 1st Armoured Division on checkpoint duty in Baghdad explained the situation to The Independent in remarkably blunt words. "We're not going to go home any sooner because of Saddam's getting caught," he said. "We all came to search for weapons of mass destruction and attention has now been diverted from that. The arrest of Saddam is meaningless. We still don't know why we came here."

There are groups aplenty with enthusiasm to attack the Americans but who never had any love for Saddam. One example is the Unification Front for the Liberation of Iraq, which was anti-Saddam but has now called on its supporters to fight the American occupation. In all, The Independent has identified 12 separate guerrilla groups, all loosely in touch with each other through tribal connections, but only one could be identified as comprising Saddam loyalists or Baathists.

When the first roadside bomb exploded in the centre of a motorway median at Khan Dari in the summer, killing one soldier, it was followed by identically manufactured mines - three mortars wired together - in both Kirkuk and Mosul. Within a week, another copy-cat mine exploded near US troops outside Nasiriyah. Clearly, groups of insurgents were touring the country with explosive ordnance capabilities, organised, possibly, on a national level.

In many areas, men identifying themselves as resistors have openly boasted that they are joining the new American-paid police forces in order to earn money, gain experience with weapons and gather intelligence on their American military "allies". Exactly the same fate that befell the Israelis in Lebanon, where their proxy Lebanese South Lebanon Army militia started collaborating with their Hizbollah enemies, is now likely to encompass the Americans.

The same men who are going to carry on attacking the Americans will, of course, be making a secret holiday in their heart over the capture of Saddam. Why, they will argue, should they not rejoice at the end of their greatest oppressor while planning the humiliation of the occupying army which seized him?

Copyright: The Independent

"The Tyrant Is Now A Prisoner"

By Robert Fisk in Baghdad
 

Gregor Samsa

That Guy
Joined
Aug 18, 2003
Messages
1,350
Location
Permanent Daylight
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
While I'm glad that Saddam (if it's indeed him) has been captured, there are still many problems surrounding the invasion of Iraq, and surrounding issues.. What reallu worries me, with Bush 'riding' this, is that this will become the new pretext for justifying war, leaving other aspects to be rendered irrelevant in the eyes of many...

Also preparing for a new flurry of jingoism. It's a time in which maintaining a healthy skepticism is vital, especially with almost all media focusing entirely on Saddam's misdeeds, excluding external contributory factors. These include the support and funding receieved from the West in the 1980's.. Only time will tell whether this is indeed the case.

What I wish would happen (sadly just a nice dream) is that rather than creating and/or abetting tyrants such as Saddam, and then turning upon them when they act outside their 'given role', America would examine their own role..Thus requiring a reconsideration of foreign policy. Of course, the study of history firmly suggests that this won't occur, given previous policies.

History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awaken.-James Joyce, 'Ulysses'.
The shame of greatness is that it disjoins power from remorse-Shakespeare, 'Julius Caesar.'
 

jk

White tiger
Joined
Jul 5, 2003
Messages
60
Originally posted by AGB
i think that the capture of saddam will be very beneficial for 'brainless bush', as you so eloquently, yet inaccurately, put it jk. a man who can lead a nation through such a terrible time is someone who should be admired.

-> well, if u call bush ,who could have screwed up US economy, cut spending for welfare, education and medical insurance for the war spending, a great leader of US people, im really speechless.... should he be admired?? for what?? for killin thousands of afghans and iraqi civilians?? or for satisfying US military industries cuz the war brought them a lotta money "to stimulate" economy???




furthermore, he is rebuilding iraq, he has just captured their dictatorial leader who slaughtered thousands and is guilty of ethnic cleansing, and, on the whole, is improving every aspect of iraq over the long term. he should be admired...

->well..i have to agree with u sayin US govt did great job in iraq by capturing sadam who, as u said, tortured millions of innocent civilians...but do u really believe bush is sum kinda pure angel from heaven who just went to iraq for "world peace and freedom"?? if u believe so, u r damn naive who don really understand all things going on in the world we live rite now...
i gotta say this, i will surely perfectly agree with u and claim my opinion is damn completely wrong only if US troops leave iraq as soon as possible without no oil, and without no intervention to new iraqi democratic govt.... until then, who knows?? but it seems to me that u already got it wrong brother...
and little surprising fact here... US supported Hussein in iran-iraqi war before...they even provided weapons for hussein just to reduce the power of iran that was strongest in arab region at that time....(of course US supported Osama bin laden also when laden was fighting in afganistan against soviet union)
when u see the photograph showing rumsfeld and hussein together at that time, do u still think that US is just there for freeing iraqi people and democratic iraq?
and what would u call US that did nothin when hussein gassed thousands of innocent kurdish people??? democracy? or brave decision by great leader????

and most importantly, your comment "he is rebuilding iraq" ...i just cant believe it..does he own iraq? is he entitled to do it? do iraqi civilians want him to do so?

don't you think that sentence should be like "iraqi people are rebuilding iraq with bush's help" or sumthin? if that's happening, then i will not call bush a "brainless" again :)





i think that people should stop reading the little opinion articles in newspapers of all of those looney, left wing writers, and actually look at the facts about what bush has accomplished during his short time as president, specifically, in iraq.

-> i think u r the one who really got a narrow perspective on this whole iraq thing...please tell me what bush REALLY achieved for iraqi civilians other than capturing sadam...if US really intends to do somthin for the civilians, they shouldve retreated from iraq already and helped iraqi people create their own government with UN support.....
and probably i guess u really don need to give a shit about what other people read cuz they r as intelligent as u r who are capable of, and entitled to make their own opinion, which is called "democracy" and "freedom"....




in addition, he went to yale law school and harvard business school. no one who has no brains gets anywhere near those places, yet alone successfully graduating. but in saying this, all those incompetent little souls will regurgitate what the lefties say - "when daddy is president, you can get anything".....or....."money can get you places" etc etc etc. do you honestly believe this??

->is studyin and graduating yale and havard directly proving u r really good president??? (well if there's sum journalists who wrote things u mentioned above, i guess they arent supposed to be journalists cuz they are damn biased...but don't make mistake...u r misjudging too by sayin "what the lefties say" cuz there are many lefties like me who are not like that...)
i think being president of world's strongest country is not only done by ur academic ability... doesn't people's morality matter? doesn't people's righteous matter?
ah, bush is drug free from 1974 or sumthin...:) well have to admire him for his patience at least:)




back on the topic of this thread, i think it very good news that saddam has finally been captured. i am sure it will reduce the amount of what have been called guerilla attacks, but most definitely not eliminate them. also, the capture of him will most likely answer some questions that have been waiting for an answer for the past few years, most notably (and most hopefully) the wherebouts of the weapons of mass destruction......

-> personally, i think the best way to reduce more meaningless killing in iraq is that us troops and coalition must finish their jobs to rebuild iraqi;s own democratic government and get outta there as quick as they possibly can...

and forget about WMD, it was never there and will not be....
 
Last edited:

Bolkonski

Brother Angry Dave
Joined
Oct 15, 2003
Messages
256
Location
Canberra
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
sorry, I retract the former remark I made concerning Bush "riding this" for an electoral booster. I merely wanted to portray the sentiment that it is something good that he can attribute to his presidency, whilst he campaigns to stay in office.

Although I have some grudges against USA... and they of course, sometimes find their way to its leader.. I respect the US and what they have done in Iraq. They have attempted to do something they could not do in Vietnam. Lifes not meant to be easy, and its the same for leaders... those who cant do, criticize. unfortunately I am a hypocrite.

Gregor Samsa, the thing about history is, depsite Marx's view, it dosnt run on tracks, and is therefore predictable... what the US's foreign policy was in 70s and 80s is completely different to todays because the world changes, and so we must aswell.. although there is always one constant throughout all time.
 

mic

Chronic Burper
Joined
Jun 24, 2003
Messages
571
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
What are they going to do with him now? I mean, there have been attacks and bombings already, hours after his capture. What sort of repercussions would come if they try and/or execute him?

It's an achievement to have found him (if it is him and not a double), but I'd hate to find out it's a trap.

As for Bush's "re-election" (I feel sorry for Al Gore every time I see him on tv) chances, the election is not till late next year, so if they needed him politically, they should have timed it to closer to the election date. then again, maybe they've found osama, and are hiding him till next year.

I've become such a cynic and conspiracy theorist since english
 

zahid

Sheikh Mujib-ur-Rahman
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
1,567
Location
In here !
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Originally posted by freaking_out
alright, calm down kids, cut down on the swearing. :p


NO NO NO Let them fight...its fun to watch
 

Butterfly_Wings

Cornflake Girl
Joined
Nov 5, 2002
Messages
1,020
Location
Sydney
Gender
Female
HSC
2002
Suddam will get the death penalty for sure...sure, everyone talks nice about leaving Iraq to trial Suddam, but can you imagine how much a of a tantie America will throw if he doesn't get death?
 

freaking_out

Saddam's new life
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
6,786
Location
In an underground bunker
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
Originally posted by Butterfly_Wings
Suddam will get the death penalty for sure...sure, everyone talks nice about leaving Iraq to trial Suddam, but can you imagine how much a of a tantie America will throw if he doesn't get death?
yeah, saddam shuld b given the death penalty after a proper trial, but then again so do many other "allied" figures, eg. ariel sharon who was in charge of the massacre of thousands of palestinians in the refuge camps on 1980s, and the list can go on....
 

Ziff

Active Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2003
Messages
2,366
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
When I think of Saddam and Sharia Law I think of Monty Python and The Life of Brian.

The scene with all the women milling about at the stoning:
"Who said that?!"
"She did I mean he did *deepens voice* him, he he him..."
 

AGB

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2003
Messages
859
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
JK,

i do admire bush. it was necessary for him to cut spending for welfare and education (i dont know about medical insurance) because there were more important issues, namely the war. believe it or not, bush's source of funds is actually limited.

and no, he should not be admired for indirectly being responsible for the deaths of many people, he should be admired for the good he has done for the iraqi people. now i admit that liberating iraq was not his primary objective, but it is still something that he is doing which he does not have to do i.e. he could leave iraq right now in a state of anarchy, but he is choosing to stay there until a democratic system of govt can be implemented, and iraq is, figuratively speaking, 'on the right track'.

also, i dont believe that bush is some kind of 'pure angel'. i honestly think that the reason he went to war was WMD. whether or not they existed is irrelevant, what matters is that bush and his crew were convinced they did. imagine a dictator who hates america, and is suspected of having WMDs. it doesnt take a genius to figure out that america could be in danger. also, add to that their fear of terrorism since september 11, and it isnt that hard to see why he went to war. but in saying that, there was also the opportunity to do some good for the iraqi people, and bush has relished that opportunity, and that is what he is doing now. i seriously doubt that this war has anything to do with oil. there is so much criticism about this oil issue, and given that there is an election next year, if bush does take the oil, i also have no doubt that he would not remain in office. the oil issue is rubbish.......

i dont think that there is any country in the world who acts completely unselfishly. sure bush's main intention was not to liberate the people of iraq, however, what i admire about him is that he could have gone into iraq, killed/captured saddam hussein, then left with the country reduced to a pile of rabble, but that is not what he is doing, nor is it what he will do in the future. iraq is no longer a threat to the US' security. the only benefit of the US still being there is for the iraqi people.......




your comment "he is rebuilding iraq" ...i just cant believe it..does he own iraq? is he entitled to do it? do iraqi civilians want him to do so?

don't you think that sentence should be like "iraqi people are rebuilding iraq with bush's help" or sumthin? if that's happening, then i will not call bush a "brainless" again :)


yes a re-wording like that would be more appropriate, and i apologise for originally saying that it was he, and only he, who was rebuilding iraq......


my point when bringing up bush's education was to show that he is not as stupid and 'brainless' as most people tend to think he is. it was not to say that he is a brilliant president nor a great leader. besides, i think his actions demonstrate that....


p.s. butterfly wings, you should read jk's post.... it = good argument, quite unlike yours :) (obligatory smiley)
 

...

^___^
Joined
May 21, 2003
Messages
7,723
Location
somewhere inside E6A
Gender
Male
HSC
1998
what strikes me the other day is....US is accusing Iraq of some humanaritain (fuck my spelling) issues

but the thing is..countries like old communist China, present day N Korea and parts of Africa are doing it too..and some to a greater extreme compare to Saddam..so why didn't Bush attack them as well..also, the inital goal for attacking Iraq was WMD, not what Saddam did...the reason for war was an act of "self-defence"
 

freaking_out

Saddam's new life
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
6,786
Location
In an underground bunker
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
Originally posted by ...
what strikes me the other day is....US is accusing Iraq of some humanaritain (fuck my spelling) issues

but the thing is..countries like old communist China, present day N Korea and parts of Africa are doing it too..and some to a greater extreme compare to Saddam..so why didn't Bush attack them as well..also, the inital goal for attacking Iraq was WMD, not what Saddam did...the reason for war was an act of "self-defence"
yeah, on that point, N korea, was way more of a threat than iraq for sure, i mean wif iraq they allowed inspectors who didn't find a trace of weapons.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top