SON OF SADDAM'S SON'S 86'd - the sequel! (further analysis)

[CaptainMidnight]

Gang,

This is a further analysis based upon my original post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=65790&mesg_id=65790&page=

On Thursday, July 24, 2003, at 01:59 PM, one of the subscribers to my email blog wrote:

"I find it very hard to believe the US would go to all this trouble to fake the deaths of saddams two sons, while taking the chance that they would resurface. If they did all credibility would be lost. It's just too big of a risk to take by any power with a shred of intelligence. Of course conspiracy theorists will claim that they in fact had been killed long ago and their bodies only now used.

Rob"

Okay,

Actually, that's one of the prevailing theories, that perhaps they would kill them, only to use them when politically expedient. I find that simply too tricky to pull off, but not outside the realm of possibility for the Bush Cabal. That's our problem: no one can put ANYTHING past them.

But, now onto the death of "Ooday" and "Cooshay," as the networks pronounce them. (Bonus points for any of you who can pronounce their names in "Pig Latin!")

As far as the "risk" goes of faking their deaths, is it any more of a risk than asserting that Hussein had TONS of chemical weapons, had bought uranium from Niger, when after the initial conflict ended, this stuff would start coming out as false? They've gotten such a free ride from their corporate cronies in the media, have successfully scared the shit outta Americans, and effectively neutralized the Democrats with cries of "traitor," that I think, along with all their other lies they've gotten away with, "tax cuts for the wealthy will spur the economy," " we 'didn't know' 9-11 was coming," "Kenny Boy, who?" etc., they were just figuring they could get away with lying about their deaths.

I'll give you another example. It's not just the "evidence" itself, it's also the TIMING, which always comes right when Bush needs a touchdown.

The arrest of Jose Padilla.

Last summer, this guy's mug was plastered ALL OVER the newspapers, all over the Cable news shows; John Ashcroft even held an emergency press conference in Germany, while travelling, and somberly informed us all that the freshly-caught Padilla was making a nuclear suitcase bomb, and was planning to detonate it in NYC. Padilla was an Al Qaeda operative!

Padilla's arrest helped push the "Bush Knew" headlines outta the news last summer. I then got an email from one of the members of The Captain's List here, that blasted me, point by point, all the evidence Ashcroft had, and all of the bad things about this guy that made him an "imminent threat."

Then, it slowly trickled out that they'd actually arrested this guy three months earlier, that he was really a Chicago gang member with no ties to Al Qaeda, and that he had no ability to make ANY sort of bomb, and all the points made to me by said member of the list, crumbled away. But I'm glad he brought them up, much like you are now, and there's actual DEBATE going on, here. You and he do/did have some valid points.

Anybody else remember this shit?

Your other point: "The US would go to all this trouble?"

Man alive, Bush & Co. are cornered, FOR ONCE, and they're grabbing at straws. Just look at all the variations on the "Pin the Blame on the Honky" for the phony Nigerian claims, anything to NOT finger Condi or Powell, two of the likely culprits - notwithstanding CHENEY - who already have brazenly LIED about it, openly fibbing to the UN and to Congress. These are the "house negroes" (see Belafonte) that Bush desperately needs to give the Administration "street cred" with moderates and blacks; "okay, Condi, it's YOUR turn to take blame." "Sorry, Colin, it's Thursday. Remember, how the blame game goes, 'boy, girl, boy, girl, then white guy, white guy, white guy, black guy, black GIRL!"

And let's say Goofus and Gallant do surface and say "we're alive!" How do you know they will and tip their hands as to where they are, and that they are still at large, thusly painting an ever-larger bullseye on their heads? Their "being dead," also works for THEM. Lets them stay outta the limelight, gives them freedom of movement, and lets them more easily take on assumed identities and live out their lives in Finland, eating chocolate, getting manicures, and clubbing baby seals to death.

Look, there's really no way to definitively prove it, either way, really dead, really alive. I saw the "death photos." Okay, two dead swarthy guys. They could be anybody. I gotta tell ya, that first photo I saw of the bald one, the guy that looked like Bluto...that beard looked mighty suspect, too bushy, the hairline too precise, like he ordered it from Wiley Coyote's ACME catalogue. They should turn the body over and see if he's got a rubber band going 'round the back of his head.

Also, they were reported to have been burned beyond recognition. This went out several times, not just one mis-statement on the wire reports, and all this fuss was made about DNA testing and how it would take days. But no, Bush needs a "victory" NOW. The heat is on him, and "impeachment has been uttered. So we went from yesterday's looking "burned beyond recognition" to today's bad driver's license photos from the DMV. I mean, except for a few bruises and cuts to the face, they looked really intact after being burned beyond recognition. How? After fighting a 4-hour battle and getting shot at by 200 US troops, attack helicopters and grenades (reports are the building looks like it was put through a paper shredder)? And the bodies look that "good?"

Maybe, when the ambush started, they had been getting facials and were forced to fight back while wearing Reviva Beauty Treatment masks? That could explain why they only had one body guard apiece. They weren't bodyguards, but rather were male masseuses. Maybe Saddam's sons were adherents of the James Dean maxim, "live fast, die young, leave a good-looking corpse?"

One salient point, as well: Since the 9-11 Hoax was foisted upon us by the Bush Cabal with the complicit media. It turns out that SEVEN of the nineteen patsies, er, uh..."hijackers" have turned up ALIVE. Yep, that's a fact. Now tell me, have you or anyone you know, read about that fact or seen Dan Rather talking about it? You'd think that would be BIG NEWS. I think so. But it's gone virtually unreported in the media. Why? Because it contradicts the "Official Story." So if Saddam's sons are reported, "alive," do you think we'd hear about it? Or if so, we can always rely upon Rush, O'Reilly, Will, Drudge, Sneezy, Grumpy, or any of the other seven right-wing intellectual dwarves to spin the story away. Look, barely a year after Bush said, "Osama, Dead or Alive," Bush came out with "Osama's irrelevant; he's not a priority of mine right now," and NO ONE in the media found this to be outrageous!

Additionally, let's face it, we can FAKE ANYTHING. It doesn't even have to look that good! Remember the Fat Osama and the Thin Osama, both appearing on TV within two weeks? Remember that trumpeted "Osama Confession Video" that British troops "found" in a house in Afghanistan, AGAIN, in the months after 9-11, right when Bush needed further proof that "Osama Did It?" It was a very sloppy joke. Dodgy footage, Osama was strangely not in focus while everyone else in the room was, he was wearing "gaudy jewelry," his watch on the "wrong wrist," he was quite doughy, especially for someone on the lamb in the mountains of Tora Bora, and he'd had a nose job.

Osama, "in happier times..."

What then really pushed that farce over the edge was when Condi Rice berated the networks to NOT SHOW any of Osama's "messages" on American television, as they might contain "hidden messages to activate Al Qaeda cells in the US." Never mind that the Internet was being utilized by Al Qaeda quite nicely for that purpose. So later, when Al Jazeerah then broadcast Osama's own direct address that he videotaped himself, looking long, lean, gaunt, and fatigued, as opposed to tanned, rested, ready, and pudgy, it pretty much signaled to me the real reason why Condi didn't want the networks showing Osama's "messages" on TV.

Hey, Big Bird! "one of these things is NOT like the other..."

After Osama's REAL video surfaced, Bush & Co. stopped shilling the "found" video immediately, then quickly backed off it after several online "debunkers" and more than a few European and Arab pundits ridiculed it. You didn't hear about it ever again, did you?

Anyway, whichever way you interpret it, Ward Hussein's "Wally & The Beaver", both dead, serve the purposes of both sides for them to be proclaimed dead, and "no longer a threat."

I'm glad many of you have chimed in already to my original post, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=65790&mesg_id=65790&page= and offered your views; maybe we'll get at the truth of this...

Captain Mike

[DUreader]

1. Keep it going, CaptainM. One nitpick for ya Belafonte "house slave"

I don't recall him using the term 'negro' and many

variations of this have been used.

I think HB was careful and deliberate in his word choice and in quoting

him we should take care to get it right.

[T Roosevelt]

2. Great posts

Just finished reading the original thread, and a lot of ground is covered in both of these. Good stuff.

Two suggestions:

1. I believe Askkkroft was in Moscow when he had his "emergency" press conference. John Ashcroft: Minister of Fear

2. Now that the rant is completed (I know it's just a streaming flow of thoughts and information), go back through it and add links to everything. For example, I did not know that the brothers hated each other - link?

(yes, I know, this may sound anal, but in working on my dissertation, all I here is "what were your references?"..."where did that come from?"..."how do you know that?")

[CWebster]

3. Interesting and entertaining read

Considering Poppy was the head of the CIA, and the same cast of dark players have been coordinating their agenda for over the past 30 years or more...and recalling the still unanswered questions about the assassination of Kennedy, the hush up, the absurd, but widely accepted "one bullet theory"--nothing should be ruled out coming from this unabashed regime of brazen thugs with their pattern of deception and unashamed campaign of lies.

It can't happen here?

[CaptainMidnight]

4. I know,

I find that to be the BIGGEST HURDLE for most people.

They may not even like Bush, but they can't wrap their minds around the fact that our 'leaders' do operate in such a manner.

The list is almost too long, but...

IG FARBEN and PROFITING OFF AUSCHWITZ SLAVE LABOR

BAY OF PIGS

KENNEDY ASSASSINATON

CHILE COUP

OCTOBER SURPRISE - STOLEN 1980 ELECTION

IRAN CONTRA

IRAQ GATE

PANAMA DECEPTION

SAVINGS AND LOAN DISASTER

BCCI

STOLE 2000 ELECTION

9-11 COMPLICITY

2002 STOLEN ELECTION

IRAQI DECEPTION - 2003

There's one name that keeps popping up, consistently in all these nefarious and treasonous offerings....

BUSH!!!

This is undeniable. This shit happened. These events took place. These people were involved in all of this. I guess this makes me a "conspiracy theorist," but you can't deny these events took place, and that a Bush was heavily involved in ALL OF THESE.

So when I discuss this with "rubes," or the egregiously uninformed electorate that are most of my friends, I bring these up to further illustrate the character or lack thereof of the players involved here.

These people are black holes. They consume. Everything disappears into their maw. They contribute nothing but devastation. Like sharks, they are the perfect eating machine.

Therefore, does that prove they perpetrated 9-11 or any amount of horrific frauds that are the Iraqi War? Not exactly, but it proves that you can't put it past them, and that this family has done horrible and highly "anti-American" treasonous things over the past 60 or so years.

The Bush Family is truly a one-clan "Doomsday Machine" for America.

And we keep falling for it, we keep letting them get away with it.

Captain Mike

[nolabels]

7. This working stiff never bought it

The more one looks at it, the more one finds out that this current government is just prop for the rich and moneyed interests. Looking up from the bottom of the box it sometimes does get interesting to see why they squirm and flail about. Thanks for the post Captain


On edit forgot any refs or links where we can check on this part of your post

One salient point, as well: Since the 9-11 Hoax was foisted upon us by the Bush Cabal with the complicit media. It turns out that SEVEN of the nineteen patsies, er, uh..."hijackers" have turned up ALIVE. Yep, that's a fact. Now tell me, have you or anyone you know, read about that fact or seen Dan Rather talking about it?

[seemslikeadream]

5. luv the stuff

Captain Mike. Have you had the chance to read in The Meeting Room Dimwit, Saudi Araba, Revelation and Revolution post 4 by Pallas180? I thought it was interesting.

[CaptainMidnight]

6. nope

I'll go look...

CM

[Tansy_Gold]

8. Just one point. . . .

. . . and I admit I haven't gone back and read the entire original thread. But one point jumped out at me from your opening post for this thread.

You wrote --

"As far as the "risk" goes of faking their deaths, is it any more of a risk than asserting that Hussein had TONS of chemical weapons, had bought uranium from Niger, when after the initial conflict ended, this stuff would start coming out as false?"

Actually, I think there is MUCH more risk in the faking of the two deaths, and therefore I think it is much more likely that these bodies are in fact Saddam Hussein's sons.

First of all, in lying about WMDs, the bushnazis knew the "proof" would never turn up. You can't prove a negative. Perle's comment about it taking 200 years to find them is right in this vein. If you know something isn't there, you don't have to worry about someone finding it; and of course if someone DID find WMDs, the bushnazis could always say, "Aha! Told you so!" So they didn't really have much risk here.

On the other hand, saying something isn't there and having it turn up is, well, pretty much proof that they lied. That's why, I think, they've never produced any proof of killing OBL, even though there were a lot of rumors that he'd been killed in the Tora Bora caves or whatever. Truth is, he might very well be deader than Strom Thurmond, but the bushnazis have no proof.

Second (or third, depending on how you're counting), the administration is not so totally stupid that they don't know they are getting tangled in their own lies. They know they have a credibility problem, and they know Blair's is even worse. The risk of having one or the other of the Hussein sons turn up alive after they lied about killing them is HUGE. The administration would be totally and completely discredited. Fuzzy videos and static-filled audio tapes are one thing, but official photos taken by U.S. military morticians carry a lot of weight and aren't as easily dismissed.

So I think they did kill the Hussein sons and these are the bodies, and it's outrageously barbaric to display the photos -- which is only minor considering it's beyond outrageously barbaric to invade the country and kill the leaders (thank you, Ann Coulter, for that policy declaration). I think the bushnazis knew they had to have a really big "victory" to draw the fire from all their fumbling and bumbling, and they're gambling that the outrage over the photos and the extrajudicial assassination aspect is less damaging to their image than the "proof" is beneficial.

I suppose there's a part of us that wants to see everything the bushnazis do as a lie, but I think we're being less than honest with ourselves if we try to apply the lie spin where it isn't needed. Sometimes the truth may be more damaging

[CWebster]

9. Today's conspiracy theory is tomorrow's truth

As far as it goes, in clinically studying the photos released yeterday, I can't say that I am totally convinced, the features of the one could possibly be, but just as easily could possibly not be, trying to determine the other was futile, the photos were dark- not well-focused and offered a limited perspective. They have released videotapes but the faces have been obviously modeled to resemble who they are supposed to be.
If that doesn't sound the alarms then they don't really need to worry about the threshold of what they can get away with.

[CaptainMidnight]

10. ah, good points

But,

If you read my first post about all this, I do allow myself some breathing room with acknowleding that they may have indeed been offed, just that the timing's suspect.

I go down several roads, routes, tangents in order to consider everything. Some, most of it may be true, may be helpful, or only one salient point, overall; who knows?

But again, the TIMING. Same day that Lynch was gonna speak publicly. Right before the 9-11 Report is released, but SAME DAY it was being leaked to the press and openly discussed on the Internet.

One more convenient event that saves Bush, and distracts us all. Story of his career. Sorry, no one's that lucky.

Same thing with the much-forgotten Flight #587 that crashed off of Long Island, THE SAME DAY the consortium of news agencies were to announce their findings of the "true winner" of the 2000 Election. Now, the truth of the matter is that Gore did indeed win; the sad fact is, on that day, the newspapers did report the truth, but they did the old trick of "burying the lead," where the headline trumpeted, falsely, "Bush Still Wins," but then you read the article, and you see that story says something else.

Anyway, Bush & Co. couldn't count on that, so first thing that morning, and not later that day, but EARLY that morning, Flight #587 crashed due to "turbulence," and "the tail FELL OFF!"

Come on!

Oh, but within one hour,"It's NOT a terrorist attack, trust us!" Dozens upon dozens of witnesses said they witnessed, heard, an explosion, then flames coming out of the plane before it plunged into LI Sound, but the media kept quiet about that. Later, many of the witnesses griped that the FBI would NOT talk to them!

(Flight 800 Deja Vu, here. I won't touch on that, here, but read INTO THE BUZZSAW for the definitive NON-conspiracy theory about what really happened)

Case closed. Nothing further was reported on it. But it dominated the news all day, and there was NO TV COVERAGE of the Election Report released that same morning.

Tin Foil Hat?

Maybe, but it was yet another plane crash, accident, suicide, UPSTAGING and DISTRACTING incident that not only benefitted the Bush Clan, but benefitted them on the VERY DAY that they needed it to happen. See my original post, see Jose Padilla, see each and every "TERROR ALERT" and the days that they occured, and you'll see what I mean.

Those two baddies could be dead. Same day of Jessica Lynch speaking out and 9-11 Report, two events the Bush Cabal saw coming down the pike, and knew about well in advance to prepare for, two potentially damaging things for a seriously wounded President? I doubt it highly. Maybe they were killed much earlier. Maybe they're doubles. I DON'T KNOW, but again, this STINKS!

Captain Mike

[Tansy_Gold]

11. Still not equivalent events

Both the release of the 9-11 report and Lynch's speaking out were events under at least some control of the bushnazis.

They knew there wasn't going to be any revelation in the 9-11 report equivalent to Nixon's tapes, nothing so damaging that Denny Hastert was going to walk into the oval office and say, "Georgie, son, looks like you done been found out. Now, don't start cryin' and screamin' and kickin' the furniture, but you're just gonna have to pack your bags, say good-bye, and get your sorry ass back to Texas where you belong. Uncle Dick's gonna be right behind you." They essentially had control of the 9-11 report from the very beginning. No need to draw attention away from it, the way there was from the news consortium's election report. Besides, by July 2003, as compared to Sept 2001, they've consolidated power in ways they hadn't right after 9-11.

Lynch is no longer any big deal, really. As a "hero" she was something to focus on, but what secrets does she really have to tell? That her rescue wasn't that big a deal? That the Iraqi hospital staff treated her well? Lies were told, yes, but a good deal of the truth has now come out and unfortunately the general populace has moved on to other issues. If Lynch really had any horrendous secrets to spill, beyond what she's already lost due to "amnesia," she'd have conveniently died of her injuries or complications from the "poor" care she got in Iraq.

So if the bushnazis offed the Hussein boys weeks or months ago and were keeping them on ice until the optimal occasion, I don't think July 23rd was it.

First of all, whenever it happened, there would have been too many things to have to cover up, like witness reports, etc. Gossip gets around, even in Iraq, when there are houses burned and major assaults. There would have been reports of their deaths if this had happened two weeks ago, or whenever. Could the U.S. military have covered up the identities of the victims? Hmmm, maybe, but there would have been speculation, if only from some of the more independent media. Can't you just imagine the speculation in The Guardian: "Was this just another guerrilla band holed up in an isolated farmhouse? If so, why all the secrecy? Why haven't the bodies been released to family members? Rumors suggest that the dead are being kept in a refrigerated morgue. . . ."

Second, the conspirators can't always determine when the "best" time to release the information might be. Certainly this week wouldn't have been it: in light of all the publicity about credibility and lies and cover-ups and so on, the last thing they'd want to risk is being discovered in yet another lie. Again, imagine the damage if the Guardian or Sydney Morning Herald reported: "The bodies displayed in U.S. photos of the sons of Saddam Hussein are reported now to have been kept in a secret morgue for the past three weeks, according to reliable but unnamed sources. When asked why the deaths hadn't been announced earlier, one military officer, speaking only on condition of anonymity, told us that his superiors hoped the bodies could be preserved 'until we really needed to put on a good show for the media. You know, make us look good when we were lookin' pretty bad.'"

Again, the risks of lying and being caught are far greater than telling the truth. The truth is much more flattering to the regime (a statement which makes me gag) than a lie.

Wasn't it William of Occam who said that when confronted with two explanations to an event, the simplest is usually the correct one? Personally, I think the simplest answer to what happened on Sept 11, 2001 and why it happened is that the bushnazis were at best incompetent and at worst complicit; the idea of blind good luck on the part of the terrorists just doesn't cut it with me. But on the smaller issue of the bodies displayed and identified as the sons of Saddam Hussein, I think they are and I think this particular story happened just as we've been told.

If anything, to give the administration probably a lot more credit than it deserves, they probably put out the truth FOR A CHANGE just to get us all speculating on what the latest lie is!

[CaptainMidnight]

12. good points

I agree about the risks involved, but I think they're still counting on a free ride; it's their M.O. that's worked all this time.

How many times have they been cornered with "the truth," and wriggled free?

I think Lynch is still bigger than you're portraying it to be. It was still a very controlled event, but who knows what she woulda said, off the cuff.

Yeah, they censored the 9-11 report, but who knows, again, what some Senator might say that day that might make the evening news?

AGain, go back and dissect the official story, as opposed to my theories and speculation. I think the official story is bunk enough...

Captain Mike

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

13. Can you respond to the latter half of post #7, Cap'n?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

14. Anyone?

?

[CaptainMidnight]

17. dude,

Gotcha.

I'll address this in a few, working on some crap here at home.

I do indeed have links, will find them. In the interim, try Google 9-11 HIJACKERS STILL ALIVE, something like that. I know I've seen that proved in several sources.

yours,
Captain Mike

[nolabels]

23. okay here is one, I found a whole bunch of other's though

Took me about a minute with this new software from
http://www.copernic.com/en/index.html

got a whole Armfull just didn't have the time to comb it now got to get some shut eye, see ya

http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/alive.html
(snip)
The World Messenger
Alleged Hijackers Alive and Well (updated from archives)
Have you forgotten how the world crisis of a possible world war we are facing today, all began?
The truth about the alleged 9/11 hijackers - What Bush will never reveal and needs you to forget...
EIGHT of the alleged September 11th Hijackers are Alive
The FBI STILL lists these men as the terrorists who crashed planes into the World Trade Center in New York,
the Pentagon, and Stony Creek Township, Pennsylvania on September 11th. But eight of them are ALIVE.

The FBI press release of September 27th, 2001 contained names, photographs, aliases and other information.
Places of birth, date of birth and other personal details were presented in news media throughout the world.

Eight men accused were NOT on those planes.
So, WHY was Bush allowed to proceed with war against Afghanistan!!!!!!!!!
The so called evidence IS A LIE. Now Bush wants to attack Iraq too.

Saeed Al-Ghamdi, Mohand Al-Shehri, Abdul Aziz Al-Omari and Salem Al-Hazmi
"are not dead and had nothing to do with the heinous terror attacks in New York and Washington."
The Saudi Arabian embassy told The Orlando Sentinel.

Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal told the Arabic Press after meeting with President George W. Bush
on Sept. 20th "It was proved that five of the names included in the FBI list had nothing to do with what happened." (snip)

[Tansy_Gold]

16. hardly a "free ride"

A free ride implies they got all this without working to make it happen. Quite the contrary -- I think they worked very hard and very carefully, and for the most part they've pulled it all off with amazing success. Even with Uday and Qusay, they've been on the most wanted list for a while, there were rewards out (and now may have been paid), and so on. This wasn't like these guys just happened into the BFEE's lap unlooked for.

Seriously, if you go back and look at how the far right (as foundation of the BFEE) has operated, both in public and behind the scenes, for the 50-60 years preceding the 2000 election, you can see exactly how they've orchestrated a lot of their successes. They've been very patient, taking a look at the very big picture and planning accordingly.

Go back to the 2000 campaign. Li'l Georgie comes pretty much out of nowhere, but it's okay because the GOP (having been slowly infiltrated, morphed, and taken over by the BFEE, which saw a long time ago the futility of third parties) is in minor disarray after two Clinton terms. But the GOP has plenty of money and no scruples and easily discredits McCain, the only real challenger. There has been other groundwork laid, including the installation of Brother Jeb in FL, holding lots of electoral votes AND being on the East Coast, where vote tallies would be reasonably complete early in the day and could be sat on until returns came in from western states. If Gore had a commanding lead in electoral votes w/o Florida, it wouldn't have made a difference, but if there was any chance that those electoral votes could be tightly controlled, it would be done. And it was.

Did it go back as far as appointments to the SCOTUS? Not directly. Not in terms of hey let's stack the court for the 2000 election. But stack it they surely did whenever they could, and we see them doing the same thing now. They were willing to take the occasional defeat in order to regroup and continue to plan. I don't think the Dems have EVER looked beyond the next election. They sure as hell aren't now.

Rightwing control of the media has been growing and growing and growing, until we reach the point where there are no liberals to counter the claim that the media is liberal! They announce, we accept. ("It is well known that television news is distinctively episodic in its depiction of political issues. During the 1980s, for instance, network newscasts showed hundreds of reports of particular acts of terrorism but virtually no reports on the socioeconomic or political antecedents of terrorism." Shanto Iyengar, "Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues," U Chicago Press, 1991. Prescient?)

The bushnazi lies have all been carefully insulated. At first, right after 9/11, the bullshit about not ever thinking anyone would use airplanes as missiles, etc., etc., etc., was all lost in the monumental grief and shock; it served as a great cover. It's not that I'm unsympathetic to grief, but I did not have a single moment, not one, of believing this was an act of terrorists acting without the knowledge or cooperation of the BFEE. As I sat watching CNN that Tuesday morning, my first thought was Hmmm, I wondered how George's puppetmasters engineered this one. I also knew, however, that the grief and shock and outrage nearly everyone else felt would be used by the BFEE as cover for the worst of their actions, i.e. Patriot Act and some other shit. It worked, too. They got what they wanted, and no now one is worried about what Condi Rice said, because she's said so much more since then. One lie buried in hundreds.

But in the grand feudal/fascist scheme, I think there are occasional small truths that we should accept for what they are and spend our energy and efforts on proving the big lies and exposing the grand scheme for what it is.

Additionally, I think there is likely to be some very big backlash from the deaths -- the Iraqis may have hated and despised the Hussein brothers, but they have already seen the American invaders as disrespectful. The home invasions, the disrespect to women, etc., are only going to be compounded now with the political uses to which the bodies have been put and the disrespect (autopsies, cosmetic retouching, etc.) shown to the dead in contravention of Islamic tradition. In that sense, it serves OUR cause, the anti-BFEE cause, more if the photos and deaths are true.

But who am I to say?

Just


Tansy Gold

[CWebster]

18. The same day the Whitehouse released evidence of memos-

a paper trail exposing the lie that Tenent had not warned them of the Niger claim repeatedly. Condi's fallguy attempted to resign but Bush said that the matter had been resolved to his satisfaction. Like handing down a guilty verdict and then letting the perps walk.

It was so effectively buried that both of you forgot about it entirely, if you heard about it all.

[CaptainMidnight]

19. EXACTLY!

DISTRACTION!

Dead baddies!

CM

[loudsue]

15. Unfortunately, Cap'n, I agree w/ everything you said.

I've seen the pictures of those bodies, and I've seen the pictures of the sons when alive. Those aren't them.

Plus, the accounts of the neighbors in the area show an ENTIRELY different story than what our media came up with. The foreign press has told the other part.

IF NOTHING ELSE, the fact that they didn't take them alive tells me that something is MORE than fishy here. I mean, what a "catch" that would have been. But alive, too many people would have known it wasn't them ... the Bushiviks wanted the "disguised" brothers silenced in every way. After all, four (4) men holding off 200-plus American troops for 6 hours??? I DON'T THINK SO!!!

The neighbors said at least 2 American soldiers were killed by gunfire during the seige. Pentegon said nobody was killed on our side. But, conveniently, the next day 3 troops were reported dead "near" the village where the brothers were taken out -- by terrorists who "ambushed" them. Hmmmm...methinks it's the same ones killed that the neighbor witnessed.

Only if the mortitian tweezed "Coosay's" eyebrows, and only if he smashed down the prominent ridge on "Oooday's" forehead, and changed the oval of his face... are these guys Saddam's sons.

Everyone knew the sons basically hated one another. They wouldn't have been together in that house. And everyone knew they had "doubles" like their dad. The rumored millions of $$ (if true?) found w/ these two bodies, may have been "pay-off" money for the doubles of the brothers to go hide out where they were found.

These guys aren't them. Bush may know where they ARE, and they may BE dead....which might account for his confidence in announcing that Saddam's sons are dead. But I agree with you. The timing is the same tell-tale tactic that has characterized this administration from the first day chimpy started running for pres.

:kick:

[CaptainMidnight]

26. interesting analysis, loudsue

thanx for this.

Captain Mike

[CaptainMidnight]

20. Okay, some sources on "hijackers ALIVE:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers.html

http://www.mujahideen.fsnet.co.uk/wtc/wtc-hijackers.htm

http://thunderbay.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/2373_comment.php

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

21. Thanks for the response.

Interesting but not convincing. Withholding judgment.

[CaptainMidnight]

22. cool

I do know, also, that they've been pulling back on, or redacting their original story about the hijackers and who they actually were.

They're covering their asses because they see people like us uncovering the truth. None other than Robert Mueller of the FBI released a statement a while back, which basically stated that, "we really have no idea WHO was on those planes."

Again, a bombshell, that went unreported and unremarked upon in the mainstream press!

Here's a blurb about it, and from FREE REPUBLIC, no less.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/798305/posts

They're hedging their bets, now. Their story keeps changing about 9-11 so you can't nail them down about their lies.

Captain Mike

[Aaron]

24. BBC link from WRH

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

[CaptainMidnight]

25. thanx man

Yet another piece fo the puzzle!

Captain Mike