Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Saddam Hussein writes a commentary to United States citizens.

By 6502 in MLP
Wed Sep 19, 2001 at 03:45:54 AM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

Saddam Hussein has written and published this commentary to the citizens of the United States. He claims our government has not published enough facts to accuse Osama Bin Laden in a legal court for the World Trade Center and Pentagon terrorist act, and that by engaging in military strikes against Afghanistan without due diligence toward fact gathering the U.S. government diminishes the very democracy it holds up to the rest of the world as a standard.

In contrast, here is what the United States government information office has to say about Saddam Hussein and his government.


Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Saddam Hussein
o this commentary
o Osama Bin Laden
o has to say
o Also by 6502


Display: Sort:
Saddam Hussein writes a commentary to United States citizens. | 27 comments (20 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden)
The main message is true (3.16 / 6) (#1)
by AndrewH on Tue Sep 18, 2001 at 11:54:23 AM EST

Neither the source nor the tone of this article should blind anyone to the fact the the US Government are still pointing fingers instead of producing evidence.
John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr — where are you now that we need you?
public vs private information (and control) (4.00 / 2) (#3)
by cetan on Tue Sep 18, 2001 at 12:21:30 PM EST

Despite the lack of disclosure to the public (i.e. Media) it's silly to assume that the government has no evidence.

Case in point. Pakistani leaders/delegates go to Afghanistan yesterday to try and convince them to hand over bin Laden. Did they do this just because they think it would be a Good Thing (tm)? I highly doubt this. More than likely, the US Government has given them some of (but probably not all) the evidence they have that fingers bin Laden in these attacks.

The US government is correct in not dumping every bit of intelligence they have into the media stream.

===== cetan www.cetan.com =====
[ Parent ]
Or Maybe it's because.... (4.66 / 3) (#7)
by Best Ace on Tue Sep 18, 2001 at 12:50:54 PM EST

'More than likely, the US Government has given them some of...the evidence they have that fingers bin Laden in these attacks. '

Or maybe the Pakistanis sent delegates to Afghanistan because they don't want a war on their doorstep, especially if it is being waged from US bases on your own territory. Especially if your own people are far more sympathetic to the Taliban than they are the US.

Or maybe it's because they want to curry favor with the US to get those sanctions lifted which were imposed by the US after they tested their nuclear weapons a couple of years back.

'The US government is correct in not dumping every bit of intelligence they have into the media stream.'

Yes I agree, but have they dumped any hard info into the media stream?

bA

[ Parent ]

Consequences for informants (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by slaytanic killer on Tue Sep 18, 2001 at 01:25:15 PM EST

I agree that it's likely true. At this stage, any real information gathered is probably punishable by death for the informants. If the information was released prematurely, it would be harder to bully/reward informants into releasing information.

[ Parent ]
You know what.... (3.50 / 4) (#5)
by GreenHell on Tue Sep 18, 2001 at 12:29:25 PM EST

...you're right, and (though I never thought I'd say this) so is Saddam. (well, partly, skip the standard rhetoric and you'll get the point)

The U.S. wants blood, they need a scapegoat. Bin Laden (sp?) fits it perfectly: he's well known (come on, how many other terrosits do you know of? there's plenty, but no one ever hears about them) and he's been responsible for attacks on the US (and more specifically the WTC). But, almost as soon as the attacks happened, before anyone knew anything other than the fact that there had been an attack, people started saying he was responsible (not high ranking officials at first, but news stations, then the officials) Sure, its possible he's responsible, but it's perfectly possible that he's not. No evidence has been given to support the fact that he isn't involved (aside from a statement of denial that I believe was put out by him, belive it if you want to, don't if you don't want to, up to you), yet at the same time, no evidence has been put forward to prove he was responsible.

After all, wasn't the Oklahoma bombing orignally blamed on Arab terrorists? Good thing the government didn't go with their first hunch there. Maybe they should wait until they have some actual proof as to who's involved before "making the rubble bounce"

[ Parent ]
The main message is not true, and you should know (2.83 / 6) (#12)
by marlowe on Tue Sep 18, 2001 at 03:48:03 PM EST

You really should read the news more often. A paper trail linking it to bin Laden is popping up all over the place. They even found a passport at the WTC.

And if you actually grant someone like Hussein any credibility at all, you have a seriously warped view of reality.

-- The Americans are the Jews of the 21st century. Only we won't go as quietly to the gas chambers. --
[ Parent ]
Re: The main message is not true (3.00 / 1) (#15)
by GreenHell on Tue Sep 18, 2001 at 08:42:04 PM EST

You mean the one that Fox News (the only site I could find that provided it with more than a one sentence) mentioned with this:

Authorities said late Saturday they found the passport of a suspected hijacker near the ruins of the twin towers. The name was not disclosed, but the discovery prompted an intensive search for evidence near the site.

Hmmm... that really points back to bin Laden. Actually, from what has actually been disclosed about the passport, it points to anyone of the who may have known the man as much as bin Laden himself.(OK, maybe if we knew the identitiy of the passport owner we'd know whether or not it points to bin Laden, but we don't, so it proves nothing to the majority of people)

So really what has been disclosed is that they found a passport that they haven't said anything about, and that the hijackers were Arabs. Well, it points to the hijackers having something to do with the Middle East. Unfortunately, the last time I checked there were plenty of terrorist groups operating out of there, not all of them connected to bin Laden.

Let's face it, until we find out more about the passport and the hijackers it proves jack-squat.

Oh, and back in the 80's the US government seemed to grant Saddam and his buddies quite a bit of crediblity.

[ Parent ]
Magic Passports (4.75 / 4) (#16)
by Verminator on Tue Sep 18, 2001 at 09:29:10 PM EST

Wow. So this guy's passport survived a plane crash into a skyscraper and the subsequent burning and collapse of that skyscraper then landed near enough to the top of the rubble pile to be found in a couple of days? Impressive.
If the whole country is gonna play 'Behind The Iron Curtain,' there better be some fine fucking state subsidized alcohol! And our powerlifting team better kick ass!
[ Parent ]
Which leads to the old joke... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by GreenHell on Tue Sep 18, 2001 at 10:34:54 PM EST

"You know that black box they have that can survive a plane crash? Why can't they make airplanes out of that material?"

Only in this case they could save money and just make it out of passports.

[ Parent ]
Paper trails... (none / 0) (#19)
by swezwho on Wed Sep 19, 2001 at 06:36:21 AM EST

Sure seems that most of that "paper trail" consists of U.S. newspapers. I guess if that's where you turn for most of what you think, then it's an opened-and-closed case, huh?

As for credibility... hell, even Dan Quayle and Dubya say some things that are correct (and hence, credible). Allowing for predictable padding and the inevitable rhetoric and grandstanding, he made some valid points.

That aside, and on the other side of that coin, just how credible is the leadership of a country that a) nurtures and supports someone like Hussein to begin with, b) makes no objections whatsoever when he practically announces that he intends to invade a neighbor, c) subsequently kills untold numbers of his followers while leaving him alone, and d) spends the next decade killing his citizenry under the guise of "sanctions"?

--The Americans are the Brits of the next century. We may be seeing the end of our empire.--

[ Parent ]

Now was it an N or an S? (none / 0) (#23)
by SeaCrazy on Wed Sep 19, 2001 at 12:38:13 PM EST

That aside, and on the other side of that coin, just how credible is the leadership of a country that a) nurtures and supports someone like Hussein to begin with

Well, in hindsight the mentality that "the enemy of our enemy is our friend" didn't work out too well in this case, as with Bin Laden. Too bad their foresight wasn't as good as your hindsight.

b)makes no objections whatsoever when he practically announces that he intends to invade a neighbor

Hmm who made no objections? I seem to recall ultimatums and plenty of chances for Saddam to change his mind.

c) subsequently kills untold numbers of his followers while leaving him alone

Yep, probably the biggest misstake of the gulf war to not finnish of Saddam.

d) spends the next decade killing his citizenry under the guise of "sanctions"

You're absolutely right, the so called sanctions are designed exclusively to kill the poor iraqi people. That is why they don't let Iraq import any food or medecine but only weapons and material to make weapons of mass destruction... Oh wait... If Saddam didn't want to make the sanctions look bad (which, listening to you, he obviosly succeeded with) the people of Iraq would not have to suffer and starve.

Also I seem to recall that the UN had (has) a finger in this game. But I am sure that no Brittish Soliders, planes, bombs, or other weapons killed any Iraqi. Or wait... I'm sure that the Brittish only killed Saddam and none of his followers... or wait... This whole mess is kinda embarressing, and I don't like the Americans so lets just blame them for the whole ordeal..

Or did you perhaps confuse the US with the UN?

[ Parent ]
A small nit (none / 0) (#27)
by generaltao on Thu Sep 20, 2001 at 10:42:28 AM EST

You seem to be under the impression that Iraqis chose their leader, and you seem to be under the impression that they have any say whatsoever. That impression would be incorrect. The Iraqi population had their "leader" imposed on them. He is a ruthless dictator.

Unless you are talking about America and I just failed to see the sarcasm in your note? Indeed, the US Ambassador to Iraq did refrain from making any sort of objection when Hussein announced his intention to move into Kuwait. Only after the fact did the US take exception with this move.

[ Parent ]

Something fishy (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by generaltao on Wed Sep 19, 2001 at 10:59:33 AM EST

Is it just me or does the whole passport thing sound a little fishy? Seems almost like an old Pink Panther movie.. the terrorist's plane smashes into a building in a huge ball of fire, some time later the building (110 stories of it) collapse down on top of everything, and in the midst of it all, a passport flutters to the ground and settles on top of the pile of rubble.

Yeah... right.

Or how about the fact that they found an Arabic Flight manual in the car when the guy had been instructed at a flight school in Florida? They hand out Arabic textbooks in Florida flight schools? His English was good enough to pass the tests in Florida but he had to send for an Arabic manual to brush up before he did the deed?

Yeah.. right.

How about the fact that two of the alledged terrorists were alledgedly seen drunk out of their minds at a strip bar days before the hijacking. Alcohol and drunkeness in general are strictly prohibited by Islam, yet these were Islamic Fundamentalist Extremist, "I want to die for Allah", Muslims? If you knew you were about to die, and you wanted to go to heaven, would one of your last acts be to get drunk in a strip joint? I suppose many people would want one last little tumble, but this behaviour does not seem to fit the profile of an insanely religious person.

Sometimes I have to ask myself if the FBI didn't just pull the passenger manifest and assume that anyone with an Arabic name was part of the gang of terrorists.

I know, I know.. yeah, right.



[ Parent ]

Hmmm.... (4.00 / 1) (#24)
by VValdo on Wed Sep 19, 2001 at 09:51:58 PM EST

I was wondering why the terrorist's luggage, which for some reason never made it on the plane, had all that stuff-- flight manuals, etc.

What would be the point of having ANY LUGGAGE? I mean, ok, maybe that would look suspicious, so they'd want to have a bag with just clothes or other clean stuff. But why so much incriminating stuff packed into a bag to be taken to an airplane you're going to hijack and blow up?

And why do people always leave incriminating evidence at home? You'd think they'd gather the stuff up and throw it in dumpster on the way to the airport, just in case federal agents stopped them on the way to the terminal...

W
This is my .sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
[ Parent ]

Noone showed ME the evidence (4.00 / 1) (#22)
by SeaCrazy on Wed Sep 19, 2001 at 11:58:50 AM EST

No, like the previous replies to this message I must conclude that since the FBI hasn't showed me personally the evidence leading to Bin Laden there must be none...

Yeah right... And I am sure that Saddam Hussein has very good sources inside the FBI so he knows there is no evidence.

Yeah there is a lot of finger pointing going on, and Dubya's "Wanted, dead or alive" comments were more then a little stupid. But don't assume that just because they have not publizised every lead they have for your perusal there are no leads.

And just to avoid any confusion, this is a reply to the previous reply to the parent post, I just didn't want to duplicate it in each thread.

[ Parent ]
Has Saddam incriminated himself by bragging? (none / 0) (#25)
by AndrewH on Thu Sep 20, 2001 at 04:25:57 AM EST

And I am sure that Saddam Hussein has very good sources inside the FBI so he knows there is no evidence.
Maybe he knows who did do it.
John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr — where are you now that we need you?
[ Parent ]
Wow... (4.25 / 8) (#2)
by Electric Angst on Tue Sep 18, 2001 at 11:57:57 AM EST

You've got to love the internet. No matter what your idea about this commentary, this kind of information coming in to the average citizen of the US would have been unimaginable as little at five years ago...
--
I fly the UN Flag.
Hmmm... interesting... (4.00 / 6) (#6)
by GreenHell on Tue Sep 18, 2001 at 12:39:29 PM EST

Well, I read the first link, posted then I started to read the US description of Iraq. What can I say, it's actually far more interesting in what it leaves out than what it includes. Mainly it leaves out anything pre-1990, which means that the history of aggression section (and other sections mentioning him threatening his neighbours) contains nothing about their war with Iran in the 80's. But then again, didn't the US support Iraq during that time? Hmmm...

Personally, I don't care who does it, I always get a perverse kick out of watching a country give money/arms/whatever to some tin-pot dictator with dreams of conquest and then them being suprised when he does something they don't like.

What surprised me (none / 0) (#26)
by codemonkey_uk on Thu Sep 20, 2001 at 09:30:53 AM EST

Was all those palaces that Sadam seems to be building.

You'll probably be asking, then why don't the people revolt? The answer of course is simple, unlike a few hundred years ago, when the French revolted, the ruling class have mashine gun turrets. A pointy stick and a rock won't do them much good against that...
---
Thad
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell
[ Parent ]

Everyone's missing the point (4.12 / 8) (#13)
by speek on Tue Sep 18, 2001 at 04:31:02 PM EST

Everyone's arguing about whether Saddam is right, about whether there is enough evidence against Bin Laden, etc. None of that matters.

Consider Saddam's real audience - the Arab world. Now, given a war of PR between Saddam and Bush, who do you think will win in Egypt? Or Iran (well, maybe bad example)? Or Pakistan, Saudia Arabia, etc? Hint: it won't be Bush.

Given that the US is going to do something (cause, try as I might, GW just isn't returning my calls), how do you suppose Arab people's are going to view it? Saddam and others are going to paint a pretty convincing picture of America as evil, and evil again. Saddam is going to hold more sway in that part of the world than he does in the US. We could go in with the most righteous, peaceful, Peace Corps on steroids plan, and the rhetoric in Arab countries would still paint a bleak picture of America's actions.

The message here is clear - do anything, and everything will get worse.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees

Saddam Hussein writes a commentary to United States citizens. | 27 comments (20 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!