Saddam's Capture Story Fabricated

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
SHUT THE FVCK UP. Perhaps FOX is not 100% fair and balanced, but are the other networks?

Get off the god damn Bush hater bandwagon. He is not a bad president at all, you libs are jus irrational.

Face it, you guys lost in 2004, and you have a real good chance of losing in 2008 if Hillary runs.

for the parroting of the rightwing "You lost, get over it!" answer to everything they can not intelligently discuss or defend.
[/quote]

My favorite part is where he talks about being irrational.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: rpbri2886

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: rpbri2886
I want you to tell me how Bush is a Nazi, or rather how he has a "Nazi Propaganda Team."

First off, a few names:

Rove
Bartlett
Ailes
Murdoch
Guckert/Gannon


Next, read through this and tell me if you don't spot the similarities:
http://www.psywarrior.com/Goebbels.html

1. Propagandist must have access to intelligence concerning events and public opinion.

2. Propaganda must be planned and executed by only one authority.
a. It must issue all the propaganda directives.

b. It must explain propaganda directives to important officials and maintain their morale.

c. It must oversee other agencies' activities which have propaganda consequences

3. The propaganda consequences of an action must be considered in planning that action.

4. Propaganda must affect the enemy's policy and action.
a. By suppressing propagandistically desirable material which can provide the enemy with useful intelligence

b. By openly disseminating propaganda whose content or tone causes the enemy to draw the desired conclusions

c. By goading the enemy into revealing vital information about himself

d. By making no reference to a desired enemy activity when any reference would discredit that activity

5. Declassified, operational information must be available to implement a propaganda campaign

6. To be perceived, propaganda must evoke the interest of an audience and must be transmitted through an attention-getting communications medium.

7. Credibility alone must determine whether propaganda output should be true or false.

8. The purpose, content and effectiveness of enemy propaganda; the strength and effects of an expose; and the nature of current propaganda campaigns determine whether enemy propaganda should be ignored or refuted.

9. Credibility, intelligence, and the possible effects of communicating determine whether propaganda materials should be censored.

10. Material from enemy propaganda may be utilized in operations when it helps diminish that enemy's prestige or lends support to the propagandist's own objective.

11. Black rather than white propaganda may be employed when the latter is less credible or produces undesirable effects.

12. Propaganda may be facilitated by leaders with prestige.

13. Propaganda must be carefully timed.
a. The communication must reach the audience ahead of competing propaganda.

b. A propaganda campaign must begin at the optimum moment

c. A propaganda theme must be repeated, but not beyond some point of diminishing effectiveness

14. Propaganda must label events and people with distinctive phrases or slogans.
a. They must evoke desired responses which the audience previously possesses

b. They must be capable of being easily learned

c. They must be utilized again and again, but only in appropriate situations

d. They must be boomerang-proof

15. Propaganda to the home front must prevent the raising of false hopes which can be blasted by future events.

16. Propaganda to the home front must create an optimum anxiety level.
a. Propaganda must reinforce anxiety concerning the consequences of defeat

b. Propaganda must diminish anxiety (other than concerning the consequences of defeat) which is too high and which cannot be reduced by people themselves

17. Propaganda to the home front must diminish the impact of frustration.
a. Inevitable frustrations must be anticipated

b. Inevitable frustrations must be placed in perspective

18. Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred.

19. Propaganda cannot immediately affect strong counter-tendencies; instead it must offer some form of action or diversion, or both.

Stop with all this nazi nonsense. That entire post is bullsh!t. You don't think Bill Clinton tried to spin news stories in his direction? I will bet you anything that he did. Regardless, I would hardly call this propaganda.

WTF does Clinton have to do with this thread?

Oh yeah. NOTHING.

Time to face the facts, kiddo. You support a president that has wet dreams about Hitler's power.

 

[cquark]

The official US story about the capture of Saddam was debunked within a couple weeks after it came out, with articles about how the Kurds had sealed him up and delivered him to US forces appearing in major newspapers and magazines around the world.
http://www.sundayherald.com/39096

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: rpbri2886

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: rpbri2886

Originally posted by: Sysbuilder05
Soooo so shocked that Bush and his Nazi propaganda team would make this up--NOT. They pimped up and screwed up the Lynch story so badly that it was exposed for the fakery it was in mere days.

The last thing they wanted was SH fighting back against American Forces. They wanted him hiding,shaking pissing his pants over the very thought of Bush coming to get him.

Well...lets see if Fair and Balanced FOX runs with this one......

SHUT THE FVCK UP. Perhaps FOX is not 100% fair and balanced, but are the other networks?

Get off the god damn Bush hater bandwagon. He is not a bad president at all, you libs are jus irrational.

Face it, you guys lost in 2004, and you have a real good chance of losing in 2008 if Hillary runs.

for the parroting of the rightwing "You lost, get over it!" answer to everything they can not intelligently discuss or defend.

One former military member made this statement. He has no backup on this. Perhaps he is disgruntled? Or maybe he is just looking to make a name for himself in much the same way Jose Canseco and others are.

If you get an entire platoon of men saying it was fake, fine I will believe it then.

However, to sit here and call Bush a nazi is just assinine. What proof do you have that Bush actually is a Nazi? Just in the same way you accused me of not backing up my arguments, I am accusing you. I want you to tell me how Bush is a Nazi, or rather how he has a "Nazi Propaganda Team."

I really am looking forward to hearing an intelligent response to this question. Most of you libs are the same, as soon as one anti-Bush story hits the mainstream, you all jump on the Impeach Bush, Bush is a Nazi bandwagon.

How did Bush ever harm you?

Please respond, or at least try to in a sensical manner.

Notice that I did not reply to this OP? I stay out of and don't post in threads I give little or no credibility to (unless someone on the right is posting it of course

I never called Bush a Nazi. I commented on your rant, not the OP or Bush.

 

[BHeemsoth]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: rpbri2886

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: rpbri2886
I want you to tell me how Bush is a Nazi, or rather how he has a "Nazi Propaganda Team."

First off, a few names:

Rove
Bartlett
Ailes
Murdoch
Guckert/Gannon


Next, read through this and tell me if you don't spot the similarities:
http://www.psywarrior.com/Goebbels.html

1. Propagandist must have access to intelligence concerning events and public opinion.

2. Propaganda must be planned and executed by only one authority.
a. It must issue all the propaganda directives.

b. It must explain propaganda directives to important officials and maintain their morale.

c. It must oversee other agencies' activities which have propaganda consequences

3. The propaganda consequences of an action must be considered in planning that action.

4. Propaganda must affect the enemy's policy and action.
a. By suppressing propagandistically desirable material which can provide the enemy with useful intelligence

b. By openly disseminating propaganda whose content or tone causes the enemy to draw the desired conclusions

c. By goading the enemy into revealing vital information about himself

d. By making no reference to a desired enemy activity when any reference would discredit that activity

5. Declassified, operational information must be available to implement a propaganda campaign

6. To be perceived, propaganda must evoke the interest of an audience and must be transmitted through an attention-getting communications medium.

7. Credibility alone must determine whether propaganda output should be true or false.

8. The purpose, content and effectiveness of enemy propaganda; the strength and effects of an expose; and the nature of current propaganda campaigns determine whether enemy propaganda should be ignored or refuted.

9. Credibility, intelligence, and the possible effects of communicating determine whether propaganda materials should be censored.

10. Material from enemy propaganda may be utilized in operations when it helps diminish that enemy's prestige or lends support to the propagandist's own objective.

11. Black rather than white propaganda may be employed when the latter is less credible or produces undesirable effects.

12. Propaganda may be facilitated by leaders with prestige.

13. Propaganda must be carefully timed.
a. The communication must reach the audience ahead of competing propaganda.

b. A propaganda campaign must begin at the optimum moment

c. A propaganda theme must be repeated, but not beyond some point of diminishing effectiveness

14. Propaganda must label events and people with distinctive phrases or slogans.
a. They must evoke desired responses which the audience previously possesses

b. They must be capable of being easily learned

c. They must be utilized again and again, but only in appropriate situations

d. They must be boomerang-proof

15. Propaganda to the home front must prevent the raising of false hopes which can be blasted by future events.

16. Propaganda to the home front must create an optimum anxiety level.
a. Propaganda must reinforce anxiety concerning the consequences of defeat

b. Propaganda must diminish anxiety (other than concerning the consequences of defeat) which is too high and which cannot be reduced by people themselves

17. Propaganda to the home front must diminish the impact of frustration.
a. Inevitable frustrations must be anticipated

b. Inevitable frustrations must be placed in perspective

18. Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred.

19. Propaganda cannot immediately affect strong counter-tendencies; instead it must offer some form of action or diversion, or both.

Stop with all this nazi nonsense. That entire post is bullsh!t. You don't think Bill Clinton tried to spin news stories in his direction? I will bet you anything that he did. Regardless, I would hardly call this propaganda.

WTF does Clinton have to do with this thread?

Oh yeah. NOTHING.

Time to face the facts, kiddo. You support a president that has wet dreams about Hitler's power.

Support this please.

 

[daveshel]

How much support do you need in addition to what is under your nose right here in this thread!

 

[Sysbuilder05]

Originally posted by: rpbri2886

Originally posted by: Sysbuilder05
Soooo so shocked that Bush and his Nazi propaganda team would make this up--NOT. They pimped up and screwed up the Lynch story so badly that it was exposed for the fakery it was in mere days.

The last thing they wanted was SH fighting back against American Forces. They wanted him hiding,shaking pissing his pants over the very thought of Bush coming to get him.

Well...lets see if Fair and Balanced FOX runs with this one......

SHUT THE FVCK UP. Perhaps FOX is not 100% fair and balanced, but are the other networks?

Get off the god damn Bush hater bandwagon. He is not a bad president at all, you libs are jus irrational.

Face it, you guys lost in 2004, and you have a real good chance of losing in 2008 if Hillary runs.

My my...aren't we testy when someone challanges the status quo? Hate to lay this on you but that Bush hater bandwagon gets larger every day,and Bush barely won. Now even the Freepers are undecided which way to go with Bush and his plan to make sure no one can file bankruptcy except his corporate buddies when they get ass deep in debt.

A recent study showed that over 50% of all bankruptcys are due to massive medical bills that NO ONE can afford. Even with good insurance the 20% deductible is wiping people out and forcing them into bankruptcy. Of course Bush and his thugs in the House and Senate will do all they can to make sure that those credit card companies get paid off even if they have to come take your house--which they will.

Next, its on to gutting SS with a plan that stinks SO bad that even mainstream Republicans thinks IT SUCKS. If someone wants to take $10.00 per week and play the stock market then go for it,you don't need to cripple SS in the process.

Oh and BTW,you and the other Rush Limbaugh listeners REALLY have you balls in a wad over this Hillary thing don't you?? Fact is MOST Dems don't want her to run for Pres including me,this country isn't ready for a woman President I don't care who she is.

 

[Steeplerot]

How can people believe anything they see on tv? shut these useless government shills down if they have to be dishonest.
Let 'muricans watch pro-wrestling if they want entertainment and get this country back on-track.

 

[BHeemsoth]

Originally posted by: Sysbuilder05

Originally posted by: rpbri2886

Originally posted by: Sysbuilder05
Soooo so shocked that Bush and his Nazi propaganda team would make this up--NOT. They pimped up and screwed up the Lynch story so badly that it was exposed for the fakery it was in mere days.

The last thing they wanted was SH fighting back against American Forces. They wanted him hiding,shaking pissing his pants over the very thought of Bush coming to get him.

Well...lets see if Fair and Balanced FOX runs with this one......

SHUT THE FVCK UP. Perhaps FOX is not 100% fair and balanced, but are the other networks?

Get off the god damn Bush hater bandwagon. He is not a bad president at all, you libs are jus irrational.

Face it, you guys lost in 2004, and you have a real good chance of losing in 2008 if Hillary runs.

My my...aren't we testy when someone challanges the status quo? Hate to lay this on you but that Bush hater bandwagon gets larger every day,and Bush barely won. Now even the Freepers are undecided which way to go with Bush and his plan to make sure no one can file bankruptcy except his corporate buddies when they get ass deep in debt.

A recent study showed that over 50% of all bankruptcys are due to massive medical bills that NO ONE can afford. Even with good insurance the 20% deductible is wiping people out and forcing them into bankruptcy. Of course Bush and his thugs in the House and Senate will do all they can to make sure that those credit card companies get paid off even if they have to come take your house--which they will.

Next, its on to gutting SS with a plan that stinks SO bad that even mainstream Republicans thinks IT SUCKS. If someone wants to take $10.00 per week and play the stock market then go for it,you don't need to cripple SS in the process.

Oh and BTW,you and the other Rush Limbaugh listeners REALLY have you balls in a wad over this Hillary thing don't you?? Fact is MOST Dems don't want her to run for Pres including me,this country isn't ready for a woman President I don't care who she is.

Two things. Credit Card companies cannot take your home as long as you get a Certificate o Homestead, this costs less than $20 when you purchase your house. You are absolutely stupid if you do not get one.

Additionaly, you seem to have a large misconception as to what this slight privitization of SS will do. Only like 2% of it will be privitized, the rest will stay as is. The problem is you liberals count on SS to be your sole income for retirement, if you do this you are just plain stupid. SS was never meant to be anything more than a suppliment to the money you put away for retirement. This plan will not hurt the system at all. The only people screaming about this are those who do not take the proper steps to save for retirement, and expect the gov't to give them a free ride throughout their lives.

And yes, I do listen to Rush, and I enjoy it.

Get your facts straight before you go making accusations you clearly knew nothing about.

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: rpbri2886

Originally posted by: Sysbuilder05
Soooo so shocked that Bush and his Nazi propaganda team would make this up--NOT. They pimped up and screwed up the Lynch story so badly that it was exposed for the fakery it was in mere days.

The last thing they wanted was SH fighting back against American Forces. They wanted him hiding,shaking pissing his pants over the very thought of Bush coming to get him.

Well...lets see if Fair and Balanced FOX runs with this one......

SHUT THE FVCK UP. Perhaps FOX is not 100% fair and balanced, but are the other networks?

Get off the god damn Bush hater bandwagon. He is not a bad president at all, you libs are jus irrational.

Face it, you guys lost in 2004, and you have a real good chance of losing in 2008 if Hillary runs.

Face it, you have no argument, so you use "You lost" as your only retort. You neocon-artists are just so irrational.

babahhh conservatives irrational, at least we don't belive in every conspiracy theory that hits the airwaves

 

[imported_Tango]

Hum... interesting debate. Even if I live most of the year in the States there are always things that surprise me in the US politics.

The bipolar nature of the american system seems to polarize every issue in a won-lost match between the two parties. How can somebody think that the people against the Bush administration are just pissed off because the democratic party lost the elections?

Bush turned the biggest national credit in history into the biggest national debt in history. Isn't this a big enough reason to consider him a not-so-smart president?

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: Tango
Hum... interesting debate. Even if I live most of the year in the States there are always things that surprise me in the US politics.

The bipolar nature of the american system seems to polarize every issue in a won-lost match between the two parties. How can somebody think that the people against the Bush administration are just pissed off because the democratic party lost the elections?

Bush turned the biggest national credit in history into the biggest national debt in history. Isn't this a big enough reason to consider him a not-so-smart president?

you make a good point, and he has spent a lot, but you have to look at economic conditons when concerning govt revenue. in the 90's, the economy was beyond booming, it was exploding, tons more income was coming in, and on top of all the spending cuts, this turn out to be a big surplus. but bush came in on an economic downturn, that turned into a nose dive fast, and this effects revenue of the govt A LOT, and the economy has just strated recovering.

so... my 2 cents

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
How can people believe anything they see on tv? shut these useless government shills down if they have to be dishonest.

Obviously, you can't, as US TV stations seamlessly insert Bush regime-created video "news reports" with government employees pretending to be "reporters" into their supposed new shows.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/polit...er=homepage&pagewanted=print&position=

Of course, the official US government Saddam capture story was debunked soon after it came out ... though mostly in the foreign press.
http://www.sundayherald.com/39096

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: fornax
An ex-marine, member of the team that captured Saddam Husein, says that the public version of Saddam's capture was fabricated. Apparently he was caught in a home in a village, and not in some hole in the ground. Kudos to the Pentagon propaganda department, Goebbels would have been proud of them.

Link to story

Who gives a $hit? Capturing him one way or another hasn't really changed squat.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: maddogchen
Also Saddam's lawyers have visited him numerous times and came back to denounce the US. How come I haven't heard of them denouncing the US version of his capture?

They are all in it together - Bush, Cheney, Hussein, Osama. The Bush admin paid them off to the tune of several billion dollars each, and they gave us a reason and let us "invade" the Iraq, so that Haliburton could get mad rich, and Bush could get relected. Also - cheap oil for all! I'm already diggin my moat so I can surround my house with a burning lake of oil! All for just pennies day! Environmental concerns? - that's why Bush tortured and forced Clinton and his Congress to not support Kyoto! This has been in the works for years!

And don't get me started on the UFOs!

I hear Squarepants Bob is doing one of the Teletubbies too.

Just FYI.

 

[Proletariat]

Of course it is a very big deal. In the Arab world and the world at large Saddam would have been viewed as a defiant rebel against American aggression. With the current story he seems like a pathetic wretch who was cowering in a hole. I personally believe the Marine, Americans are very good at propaganda. They most likely brought Arabs along with them because Tikrit is a very dangerous area for Westerners. The Arabs would be trusted more. It was probably a necessary action considering the circumstances. I doubt that Saddam would just have given up. Look at the fierce resistance his sons and grandchildren gave before they were killed.

A story of Saddam's defiance would make the insurgency even more fierce. We play our cards well, rob a people of all their pride and they won't give up much of a fight. Well most people wouldn't. I guess the Middle Easterners are made of tougher stuff.

 

[InlineFive]

It's sad, but unfortunately I'm not surprised based on what I know about this government.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: ntdz
I actually liked the story of what this guy said happened. He was firing at US Troops with a pistol? Shows he derranged he really is if it's true. I don't believe the marine though, I think he's lying.

So the question is, then, if he was firing at them, why didn't they shoot his ass dead like they do to other insurgents who are firing at them?

I suspect it's also balogna from an unhappy soldier looking for a book deal and an early retirement This will probably go over well with the tinfoil hat crowd, though.

Jason

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: maddogchen
Also Saddam's lawyers have visited him numerous times and came back to denounce the US. How come I haven't heard of them denouncing the US version of his capture?

They are all in it together - Bush, Cheney, Hussein, Osama. The Bush admin paid them off to the tune of several billion dollars each, and they gave us a reason and let us "invade" the Iraq, so that Haliburton could get mad rich, and Bush could get relected. Also - cheap oil for all! I'm already diggin my moat so I can surround my house with a burning lake of oil! All for just pennies day! Environmental concerns? - that's why Bush tortured and forced Clinton and his Congress to not support Kyoto! This has been in the works for years!

And don't get me started on the UFOs!

2 WORDS .....

CRACK KILLS

 

[LtPage1]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
What is the difference???

Why make up the story about the hole in the ground???

Because instead of a tough guy who fought until the end, you've got a story about a tough guy who suddenly turned into a little coward, cowering in a hole. Which story makes saddam look worse?

This is one guy's version vs. everybody else's. Until there is more dissent, I will believe the original story.

same here. dont think it makes much difference at this point, though.