Alternate story on Saddam's capture - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Redlemon · 12-15-2003, 02:24 PM

Check out the DebkaFile Special Report. DebkaFile is an Israeli intelligence-gathering newssite, which often has much better and unfiltered information. Check this out:

Quote:

Indications Saddam Was Not in Hiding But a Captive

DEBKAfile Special Report

December 14, 2003, 6:55 PM (GMT+02:00)

A number of questions are raised by the incredibly bedraggled, tired and crushed condition of this once savage, dapper and pampered ruler who was discovered in a hole in the ground on Saturday, December 13:

1. The length and state of his hair indicated he had not seen a barber or even had a shampoo for several weeks.

2. The wild state of his beard indicated he had not shaved for the same period

3. The hole dug in the floor of a cellar in a farm compound near Tikrit was primitive indeed – 6ft across and 8ft across with minimal sanitary arrangements - a far cry from his opulent palaces.

4. Saddam looked beaten and hungry.

5. Detained trying to escape were two unidentified men. Left with him were two AK-47 assault guns and a pistol, none of which were used.

6. The hole had only one opening. It was not only camouflaged with mud and bricks – it was blocked. He could not have climbed out without someone on the outside removing the covering.

7. And most important, $750,000 in 100-dollar notes were found with him (a pittance for his captors who expected a $25m reward)– but no communications equipment of any kind, whether cell phone or even a carrier pigeon for contacting the outside world.

According to DEBKAfile analysts, these seven anomalies point to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein was not in hiding; he was a prisoner.

After his last audiotaped message was delivered and aired over al Arabiya TV on Sunday November 16, on the occasion of Ramadan, Saddam was seized, possibly with the connivance of his own men, and held in that hole in Adwar for three weeks or more, which would have accounted for his appearance and condition. Meanwhile, his captors bargained for the $25 m prize the Americans promised for information leading to his capture alive or dead. The negotiations were mediated by Jalal Talabani’s Kurdish PUK militia.

These circumstances would explain the ex-ruler’s docility – described by Lt.Gen. Ricardo Sanchez as “resignation” – in the face of his capture by US forces. He must have regarded them as his rescuers and would have greeted them with relief.

From Gen. Sanchez’s evasive answers to questions on the $25m bounty, it may be inferred that the Americans and Kurds took advantage of the negotiations with Saddam’s abductors to move in close and capture him on their own account, for three reasons:

A. His capture had become a matter of national pride for the Americans. No kudos would have been attached to his handover by a local gang of bounty-seekers or criminals. The country would have been swept anew with rumors that the big hero Saddam was again betrayed by the people he trusted, just as in the war.

B. It was vital to catch his kidnappers unawares so as to make sure Saddam was taken alive. They might well have killed him and demanded the prize for his body. But they made sure he had no means of taking his own life and may have kept him sedated.

C. During the weeks he is presumed to have been in captivity, guerrilla activity declined markedly – especially in the Sunni Triangle towns of Falluja, Ramadi and Balad - while surging outside this flashpoint region – in Mosul in the north and Najef, Nasseriya and Hilla in the south. It was important for the coalition to lay hands on him before the epicenter of the violence turned back towards Baghdad and the center of the Sunni Triangle.

The next thing to watch now is not just where and when Saddam is brought to justice for countless crimes against his people and humanity - Sanchez said his interrogation will take “as long as it takes – but what happens to the insurgency. Will it escalate or gradually die down?

An answer to this, according to DEBKAfile’s counter-terror sources, was received in Washington nine days before Saddam reached US custody.

It came in the form of a disturbing piece of intelligence that the notorious Lebanese terrorist and hostage-taker Imad Mughniyeh, who figures on the most wanted list of 22 men published by the FBI after 9/11, had arrived in southern Iraq and was organizing a new anti-US terror campaign to be launched in March-April 2004, marking the first year of the American invasion.

For the past 21 years, Mughniyeh has waged a war of terror against Americans, whether on behalf of the Hizballah, the Iranian Shiite fundamentalists, al Qaeda or for himself. The Lebanese arch-terrorist represents for the anti-American forces in Iraq an ultimate weapon.

Saddam’s capture will not turn this offensive aside; it may even bring it forward.

For Israel, there are three lessons to be drawn from the dramatic turn of events in Iraq:

First, An enemy must be pursued to the end and if necessary taken captive. The Sharon government’s conduct of an uncertain, wavering war against the Palestinian terror chief Yasser Arafat stands in stark contrast to the way the Americans have fought Saddam and his cohorts in Iraq and which has brought them impressive gains.

Second, Israel must join the US in bracing for the decisive round of violence under preparation by Mughniyeh, an old common enemy from the days of Beirut in the 1980s. Only three weeks ago, DEBKAfile’s military sources reveal, the terrorist mastermind himself was seen in south Lebanon in surveillance of northern Israel in the company of Iranian military officers. With this peril still to be fought, it is meaningless for Israelis to dicker over the Geneva Accord, unilateral steps around the Middle East road map, or even the defensive barrier.

Third, Certain Israeli pundits and even politicians, influenced by opinion in Europe, declared frequently in recent weeks that the Americans had no hope of capturing Saddam Hussein and were therefore bogged down irretrievably in Iraq. The inference was that the Americans erred in embarking on an unwinnable war in Iraq.

This was wide of the mark even before Saddam was brought in. The Americans are in firm control - even though they face a tough new adversary – and the whole purpose of the defeatist argument heard in Israel was to persuade the Sharon government that its position in relation to the Palestinians and Yasser Arafat is as hopeless as that of the Americans in Iraq. Israel’s only choice, according to this argument, is to knuckle under to Palestinian demands and give them what they want. Now that the Iraqi ruler is in American custody, they will have to think again.

Copyright 2000-2003 DEBKAfile. All Rights Reserved.

mulletJeb · 12-15-2003, 09:54 PM

whoa, that's wild... seems plausible to me, but that doesn't mean much -- him hiding was plausible to me too, though the huge contrast in his condition did make me wonder.

BulletCatcher · 12-16-2003, 12:54 AM

Quote:

1. The length and state of his hair indicated he had not seen a barber or even had a shampoo for several weeks.

2. The wild state of his beard indicated he had not shaved for the same period

3. The hole dug in the floor of a cellar in a farm compound near Tikrit was primitive indeed – 6ft across and 8ft across with minimal sanitary arrangements - a far cry from his opulent palaces.

4. Saddam looked beaten and hungry.

5. Detained trying to escape were two unidentified men. Left with him were two AK-47 assault guns and a pistol, none of which were used.

6. The hole had only one opening. It was not only camouflaged with mud and bricks – it was blocked. He could not have climbed out without someone on the outside removing the covering.

7. And most important, $750,000 in 100-dollar notes were found with him (a pittance for his captors who expected a $25m reward)– but no communications equipment of any kind, whether cell phone or even a carrier pigeon for contacting the outside world.

Quick debunking of this.

1 & 2) You have the most recognizable face in perhaps the world. Short of plastic surgery what better way to hide your true appearance.

3) The hole was not meant to be lived in, only used to hide in until the danger/searchers pass. It's supposed to be small. It's a lot harder to find a 6x8 hole than a large underground bunker complex.

4) Man's been on the run for 8 months. Look at any fugitive caught after an extended manhunt.

5) Personal bodyguards. Large security details and numerous weapons tend to draw suspicion, something you don't want when trying to hide.

6) That's the whole point of a well concealed hiding place. He goes in the hole, his body guards cover him up. From the outside there's almost no indication that anything is amiss. Besides, the cover was only styrofoam covered by a small carpet.

7) Don't keep all you're assets in one place. Even if you get away you still could lose it all if they find it. Cellphones and radios can be traced. Person to person communication in the form of trusted message runners are much less likely to be intercepted.

mulletJeb · 12-16-2003, 05:56 PM

BulletCatcher: that was pro..

Snakedance · 12-17-2003, 08:46 AM

I have read the Debka over the past 2-3 years. My experience so far is that most of the "breaking conspiracy" articles are equivalent to the National Enquirer. During the times of the desert war I found the inside intelligence interesting, but also that most of it was readily available on many other sites (CNN, BBC etc.) All the other speculative information was just a guess and had the same accuracy as you would expect of any guess. The site does have excellent information about parts of the world that are generally ignored in USA, but dont make any bets on what may only become true or false in a retrospective manner.

timalkin · 12-17-2003, 09:14 AM

Saddam's hair and beard growth were not the result of a few weeks. That growth is more like 8 months. Did you see how long it was? I've gone without shaving for a month and I know that it would take at least 8 months to get the kind of length.

89transam · 12-17-2003, 02:35 PM

Yea but thier hair hair grows much faster

hiredgun · 12-18-2003, 12:15 AM

well, it's certainly plausible, compared to other "alternate" theories floating around, but BulletCatcher's got it... the "proof" offered is really just speculation.

timalkin · 12-18-2003, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 89transam
Yea but thier hair hair grows much faster

What do you mean, "thier *sic* hair?" You make it sound like Saddam is some kind of alien or robot from outerspace lol.

asudevil83 · 12-19-2003, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BulletCatcher
Quick debunking of this.

1 & 2) You have the most recognizable face in perhaps the world. Short of plastic surgery what better way to hide your true appearance.

3) The hole was not meant to be lived in, only used to hide in until the danger/searchers pass. It's supposed to be small. It's a lot harder to find a 6x8 hole than a large underground bunker complex.

4) Man's been on the run for 8 months. Look at any fugitive caught after an extended manhunt.

5) Personal bodyguards. Large security details and numerous weapons tend to draw suspicion, something you don't want when trying to hide.

6) That's the whole point of a well concealed hiding place. He goes in the hole, his body guards cover him up. From the outside there's almost no indication that anything is amiss. Besides, the cover was only styrofoam covered by a small carpet.

7) Don't keep all you're assets in one place. Even if you get away you still could lose it all if they find it. Cellphones and radios can be traced. Person to person communication in the form of trusted message runners are much less likely to be intercepted.

i can see your point on a couple of those, but some of them are just a little off for me.

1.) although you do have the most recognizable man in the world in Saddam, he is also the ruler of your country. long hair and a beard are to be expected, but what kind of ruler would he be if his body guards took more showers, combed their hair, looked healthy, and such if you didnt. Bin Laden has been "on the run" for a long time now, he lives in caves in the middle of no where, and for god sakes he looks ten times better than Saddam did when we captured him.

2.) sure the space he was in when they found him was VERY small. you could say that it was just a hideout hole, so that when danger passes he can come out and such. but from the video that i've seen of that spot, it looked like much more than a hideout. it had books, mags, and i believe even a place to store clothing and such. that doesnt sound like a safe house to me. it looked more like a prison cell than anything else.

3.) what kind of safe hole only has one entrance and exit? not a very good one. wouldnt you think that if things got a little "too close for comfort" Saddam should have a secondary way out? i sure as hell would. especially if he's supposed to be the most important man in the country your trying to protect. not having at least one other way out is foolish. if they find your entrance, your fucked.

4.) i dont think having a small arsenal of weapons is that suspicious there. videos i've seen of that area of the country have KIDS walking around with shit like that. its not out of the ordinary, its normal. once again, if you have someone to protect, such as Saddam (the most important man in the country) you want something to protect him with. GUNS, as many guns as you have men. remember, you're supposed to die for this man IF your protecting him. the guns they had, they didnt use.....not a bullet. if you are loyal to Saddam, you HATE americans. you see an american, you shoot them. if you know your going to die, you kill as many of them as possible.

the first time i saw a picture of Saddam looking like shit, i thought "damn he looks like a POW." he looked confused as hell, drugged up even. his eyes were all glazed over, shifting their point of focus every few seconds. he had this look of "where am i, how did i get here, what's going on?"

ChrisJericho · 12-21-2003, 06:02 AM

Eh, the theory has some good points. I would not put it past Rumsfeld to spin it as an American capture as opposed to an American bargaining.

I think the truth will come out eventually, whether it supports the original story or otherwise. Bottom line is: that bastard's in jail.

12-17-2003, 08:46 AM	#5 (permalink)
Snakedance Enhanced With Psychotrophics Location: Snakepit	I have read the Debka over the past 2-3 years. My experience so far is that most of the "breaking conspiracy" articles are equivalent to the National Enquirer. During the times of the desert war I found the inside intelligence interesting, but also that most of it was readily available on many other sites (CNN, BBC etc.) All the other speculative information was just a guess and had the same accuracy as you would expect of any guess. The site does have excellent information about parts of the world that are generally ignored in USA, but dont make any bets on what may only become true or false in a retrospective manner. __________________ "When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That's relativity. - Albert Einstein

12-21-2003, 06:02 AM	#11 (permalink)
ChrisJericho eat more fruit Location: Seattle	Eh, the theory has some good points. I would not put it past Rumsfeld to spin it as an American capture as opposed to an American bargaining. I think the truth will come out eventually, whether it supports the original story or otherwise. Bottom line is: that bastard's in jail. __________________ "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows us that faith proves nothing." - Friedrich Nietzsche

12-15-2003, 09:54 PM	#2 (permalink)
mulletJeb Insane	whoa, that's wild... seems plausible to me, but that doesn't mean much -- him hiding was plausible to me too, though the huge contrast in his condition did make me wonder.

12-16-2003, 05:56 PM	#4 (permalink)
mulletJeb Insane	BulletCatcher: that was pro..

12-17-2003, 09:14 AM	#6 (permalink)
timalkin Addict Location: watching from the treeline	Saddam's hair and beard growth were not the result of a few weeks. That growth is more like 8 months. Did you see how long it was? I've gone without shaving for a month and I know that it would take at least 8 months to get the kind of length.

12-17-2003, 02:35 PM	#7 (permalink)
89transam Psycho Location: Central California	Yea but thier hair hair grows much faster

12-18-2003, 12:15 AM	#8 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	well, it's certainly plausible, compared to other "alternate" theories floating around, but BulletCatcher's got it... the "proof" offered is really just speculation.