Here he is, the man they called “The Butcher of Baghdad,” Mr. Saddam Hussein, shortly after U.S. soldiers pulled him from his so-called spider hole in Iraq. How bewildered he must have felt. Not so long before, he was sitting pretty.
Here he was in his glory days, perhaps relishing the fact that he had invaded Kuwait, burned its oil fields in a dastardly act of eco-vandalism, killed some 5,000 of his own people with chemical weapons at Halabjah, and stuffed another 400,000 or so of his constituents into mass graves.
Did he still possess Weapons of Mass Death? Seemingly not, at least not in the quantities America and its allies expected. But wasn't there another reason America and its Coalition partners invaded Iraq? Didn't Saddam Hussein have ties to terrorism?
The notion that he did not is an article of faith among the critics of President Bush, Tony Blair and their allies. Saddam Hussein, they argue, knew little if anything about terrorism, especially al-Qaeda. Saddam Hussein, they argue, knew little if anything about terrorism, especially al-Qaeda. Listen to a few of these more notable detractors:
I never believed in the link between Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and Islamist terrorism
- former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright flatly declared in an October 21, 2003 essay published in Australia's Melbourne Herald Sun.
Iraq was not a breeding ground for terrorism. Our invasion has made it one [...] We were told Iraq was attracting terrorists from Al Qaeda. It was not.
- Senator Ted Kennedy was reported as saying to the Boston Globe October 16, 2003
CBS Chicago reported that in August 2003, former vice president Albert Gore reassuringly stated:
The evidence now shows clearly that Saddam did not want to work with Osama bin Laden at all.
Saddam is now gone. So we can now look forward to the rebuilding of Iraq and the strengthening of the world economy.
Critics have come out, guns blazing, criticizing Bush’s attack on Iraq. Quite similar to how the westerners downplayed the medicinal value of Cordyceps sinensis, until it finally hit them in the face. This mushroom derived fungi is now one of the most sought after plants on the globe. Similarly, the Saadam-Alqaeda link was downplayed, termed wishful thinking. Madelein Albright, the then State Secretary, said she was never quite sold on this link, and did all but call it an urban legend. It was no secret that Saddam was potentially the largest supporter of the Alqaeda, and the facts to back this up are simply beyond doubt.
First, Czech republic officials, know for a fact that the 9-11 bombing was an Alqaeda co-ordinated attack, and that the mastermind, Atta, met with at least one Iraqi official. That’s not an allegation someone would throw around, considering its implications. Saddam, for years, was the Militant group’s ”benefactor-in-Chief”. The list is extensive; the Lauro cruise ship hijacking, 1985, the culprit; Abu Abbas, caught-just outside Baghdad. Abu Nidal, a Palestinian terrorist had been living in Iraq from ’99 to ’02, until he supposedly shot himself in the head-with four bullets!
Salman Pak, a training camp for terrorists, a theory confirmed by an Iraqi captain on national TV! This camp was known to train Egyptian and Middle East Nationals to be deployed all over the world! Saddam’s son, Uday, in November 2002, publishes a ”List of Honor”. Then, he goes on to mention the then Iraqi-Islamabad Ambassador; Abid Al Karim Muhammad Aswod, as the coordinator between Iraq and the Alqaeda group. If that doesn’t raise your eyebrow, then what about the fact that Saddam gave $25,000 to the families of the Palestinian suicide bomber families, up from the stipulated $10,000?
Here he is, the man they called “The Butcher of Baghdad,” Mr. Saddam Hussein, shortly after U.S. soldiers pulled him from his so-called spider hole in Iraq. How bewildered he must have felt. Not so long before, he was sitting pretty.
Here he was in his glory days, perhaps relishing the fact that he had invaded Kuwait, burned its oil fields in a dastardly act of eco-vandalism, killed some 5,000 of his own people with chemical weapons at Halabjah, and stuffed another 400,000 or so of his constituents into mass graves.
Did he still possess Weapons of Mass Death? Seemingly not, at least not in the quantities America and its allies expected. But wasn't there another reason America and its Coalition partners invaded Iraq? Didn't Saddam Hussein have ties to terrorism?
The notion that he did not is an article of faith among the critics of President Bush, Tony Blair and their allies. Saddam Hussein, they argue, knew little if anything about terrorism, especially al-Qaeda. Saddam Hussein, they argue, knew little if anything about terrorism, especially al-Qaeda. Listen to a few of these more notable detractors:
I never believed in the link between Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and Islamist terrorism
- former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright flatly declared in an October 21, 2003 essay published in Australia's Melbourne Herald Sun.
Iraq was not a breeding ground for terrorism. Our invasion has made it one [...] We were told Iraq was attracting terrorists from Al Qaeda. It was not.
- Senator Ted Kennedy was reported as saying to the Boston Globe October 16, 2003
CBS Chicago reported that in August 2003, former vice president Albert Gore reassuringly stated:
The evidence now shows clearly that Saddam did not want to work with Osama bin Laden at all.
Saddam is now gone. So we can now look forward to the rebuilding of Iraq and the strengthening of the world economy.
One of the most obvious signs of a functional democracy is without doubt a free press and media. However in 2009 there was a rather strange TV station that appeared out of nowhere which seemed to challenge this thought. It was a huge mystery initially, a channel suddenly began broadcasting the first day of 2009′s Eid festival for Sunni Muslims. The stations official name has been alternating between two different names – Al-Arabi and Al-Lafeta which mean the Arab and the Banner respectively.
It’s not the most exciting channel and given that the majority of it’s content consists of still images of Saddam Hussein in various smart poses. There’s him on a horse, Saddam in a nice suit and then his military uniforms. Obviously there may be a few repeats given that Saddam was executed in 2006 nearly three years previously. The pictures are mostly rather old, and as yet we haven’t had a speaker or announcer or commentator. It does seem to be a rather pointless exercise at this point.
Finding who is paying for this strange TV station is not easy either although the chief suspects are that of the Baathist party. The party that Saddam led for so many years. However it was finally tracked down to a man in Damascus called Mohammed Jarboua who denied that it was the Baathist party funding the channel. He said that it is simply for Iraqis and other arabs. I have to say it was one of the most boring channels I’d every seen, and frankly it didn’t come close to an evening watching Iplayer abroad on my Ipad.
The media adviser to the current Iraqi Prime minister, has insisted that the station is an irrelevance. They refused to comment on whether the channel will be shut down or not. It seems unlikely a channel with such an obvious agenda would be allowed to continue in most countries never mind the new Iraq. The Baathist party has actually spread out since the demise of Saddam becoming strong in Syria and Jordan, but also to Yemen and a few other of the Gulf nations. Many of these people have gained great wealth during the time of Saddams rule and there would be many able to afford this sort of gesture, expensive though it is.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1232156/TV-mystery-Saddam-Hussain-Channel-appears-Arab-satellite-networks.html#ixzz1gKfu8NIu
Here he is, the man they called “The Butcher of Baghdad,” Mr. Saddam Hussein, shortly after U.S. soldiers pulled him from his so-called spider hole in Iraq. How bewildered he must have felt. Not so long before, he was sitting pretty.
Here he was in his glory days, perhaps relishing the fact that he had invaded Kuwait, burned its oil fields in a dastardly act of eco-vandalism, killed some 5,000 of his own people with chemical weapons at Halabjah, and stuffed another 400,000 or so of his constituents into mass graves.
Did he still possess Weapons of Mass Death? Seemingly not, at least not in the quantities America and its allies expected. But wasn't there another reason America and its Coalition partners invaded Iraq? Didn't Saddam Hussein have ties to terrorism?
The notion that he did not is an article of faith among the critics of President Bush, Tony Blair and their allies. Saddam Hussein, they argue, knew little if anything about terrorism, especially al-Qaeda. Saddam Hussein, they argue, knew little if anything about terrorism, especially al-Qaeda. Listen to a few of these more notable detractors:
I never believed in the link between Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and Islamist terrorism
- former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright flatly declared in an October 21, 2003 essay published in Australia's Melbourne Herald Sun.
Iraq was not a breeding ground for terrorism. Our invasion has made it one [...] We were told Iraq was attracting terrorists from Al Qaeda. It was not.
- Senator Ted Kennedy was reported as saying to the Boston Globe October 16, 2003
CBS Chicago reported that in August 2003, former vice president Albert Gore reassuringly stated:
The evidence now shows clearly that Saddam did not want to work with Osama bin Laden at all.
Saddam is now gone. So we can now look forward to the rebuilding of Iraq and the strengthening of the world economy.
Anyone that has been in a combat situation can attest to the fact that in order to survive you better be operating at 100%; and part of 100% for the human body is getting the proper sleep needed. So wouldn’t this imply that ensuring soldiers at war get the proper sleep could lead to less casualties? Perhaps, we will never know until we try. Right now in the US there are about ten million people who are undiagnosed with a sleep disorder known as sleep apnea.
This condition is often times treated in mild cases by simply getting an oral mouthpiece fitted to wear at night. Something small enough where a soldier can keep it on him at base and make sure he’s getting the right sleep every night in case of an emergency combat situation.
Here he is, the man they called “The Butcher of Baghdad,” Mr. Saddam Hussein, shortly after U.S. soldiers pulled him from his so-called spider hole in Iraq. How bewildered he must have felt. Not so long before, he was sitting pretty.
Here he was in his glory days, perhaps relishing the fact that he had invaded Kuwait, burned its oil fields in a dastardly act of eco-vandalism, killed some 5,000 of his own people with chemical weapons at Halabjah, and stuffed another 400,000 or so of his constituents into mass graves.
Did he still possess Weapons of Mass Death? Seemingly not, at least not in the quantities America and its allies expected. But wasn't there another reason America and its Coalition partners invaded Iraq? Didn't Saddam Hussein have ties to terrorism?
The notion that he did not is an article of faith among the critics of President Bush, Tony Blair and their allies. Saddam Hussein, they argue, knew little if anything about terrorism, especially al-Qaeda. Saddam Hussein, they argue, knew little if anything about terrorism, especially al-Qaeda. Listen to a few of these more notable detractors:
I never believed in the link between Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and Islamist terrorism
- former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright flatly declared in an October 21, 2003 essay published in Australia's Melbourne Herald Sun.
Iraq was not a breeding ground for terrorism. Our invasion has made it one [...] We were told Iraq was attracting terrorists from Al Qaeda. It was not.
- Senator Ted Kennedy was reported as saying to the Boston Globe October 16, 2003
CBS Chicago reported that in August 2003, former vice president Albert Gore reassuringly stated:
The evidence now shows clearly that Saddam did not want to work with Osama bin Laden at all.
Saddam is now gone. So we can now look forward to the rebuilding of Iraq and the strengthening of the world economy.
So the deadline is looming for the European debt relief crisis. And a similar crisis may not be far off from striking the United States. For so long has the world leaders in banking and government abused the financial system by borrowing sums of money that can never be re paid. All of this borrowing will eventually lead to collapse as we are about to witness in the Euro Zone.
It’s quite sad that the world economy has come to this. And it’s scary that the problem will only get much worse before starting to get better. The even scarier part is the amount of denial people are in about the coming currency crisis, the same denial people had prior to the housing collapse a few years back.
Here he is, the man they called “The Butcher of Baghdad,” Mr. Saddam Hussein, shortly after U.S. soldiers pulled him from his so-called spider hole in Iraq. How bewildered he must have felt. Not so long before, he was sitting pretty.
Here he was in his glory days, perhaps relishing the fact that he had invaded Kuwait, burned its oil fields in a dastardly act of eco-vandalism, killed some 5,000 of his own people with chemical weapons at Halabjah, and stuffed another 400,000 or so of his constituents into mass graves.
Did he still possess Weapons of Mass Death? Seemingly not, at least not in the quantities America and its allies expected. But wasn't there another reason America and its Coalition partners invaded Iraq? Didn't Saddam Hussein have ties to terrorism?
The notion that he did not is an article of faith among the critics of President Bush, Tony Blair and their allies. Saddam Hussein, they argue, knew little if anything about terrorism, especially al-Qaeda. Saddam Hussein, they argue, knew little if anything about terrorism, especially al-Qaeda. Listen to a few of these more notable detractors:
I never believed in the link between Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and Islamist terrorism
- former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright flatly declared in an October 21, 2003 essay published in Australia's Melbourne Herald Sun.
Iraq was not a breeding ground for terrorism. Our invasion has made it one [...] We were told Iraq was attracting terrorists from Al Qaeda. It was not.
- Senator Ted Kennedy was reported as saying to the Boston Globe October 16, 2003
CBS Chicago reported that in August 2003, former vice president Albert Gore reassuringly stated:
The evidence now shows clearly that Saddam did not want to work with Osama bin Laden at all.
Saddam is now gone. So we can now look forward to the rebuilding of Iraq and the strengthening of the world economy.
Saddam Hussein was a terror monger that had a network of marketing engineers that spread his lies to the people of Iraq and the world. His words were spread even after his downfall via the internet as well as through conventional media. Unfortunately whether they were supporters of his or not, they would never see one penny of what they would have gotten had they not been living under a tyrant. He could have hired the best SEO company in the world, we know he had the money to do so but still would only pay by using a heavy hand.
Since his fall and eventually his death I’m still not so sure Iraq has become a better place. Granted maybe the United States got rid of an evil man but from very recent reports Baghdad is that it’s one of the most unsafe cities to live in these days. Personally I think that’s more a testament to their police force not really enforcing anything. Hopefully some day what used to be God’s country will be restored to it’s one time glory.
Here he is, the man they called “The Butcher of Baghdad,” Mr. Saddam Hussein, shortly after U.S. soldiers pulled him from his so-called spider hole in Iraq. How bewildered he must have felt. Not so long before, he was sitting pretty.
Here he was in his glory days, perhaps relishing the fact that he had invaded Kuwait, burned its oil fields in a dastardly act of eco-vandalism, killed some 5,000 of his own people with chemical weapons at Halabjah, and stuffed another 400,000 or so of his constituents into mass graves.
Did he still possess Weapons of Mass Death? Seemingly not, at least not in the quantities America and its allies expected. But wasn't there another reason America and its Coalition partners invaded Iraq? Didn't Saddam Hussein have ties to terrorism?
The notion that he did not is an article of faith among the critics of President Bush, Tony Blair and their allies. Saddam Hussein, they argue, knew little if anything about terrorism, especially al-Qaeda. Saddam Hussein, they argue, knew little if anything about terrorism, especially al-Qaeda. Listen to a few of these more notable detractors:
I never believed in the link between Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and Islamist terrorism
- former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright flatly declared in an October 21, 2003 essay published in Australia's Melbourne Herald Sun.
Iraq was not a breeding ground for terrorism. Our invasion has made it one [...] We were told Iraq was attracting terrorists from Al Qaeda. It was not.
- Senator Ted Kennedy was reported as saying to the Boston Globe October 16, 2003
CBS Chicago reported that in August 2003, former vice president Albert Gore reassuringly stated:
The evidence now shows clearly that Saddam did not want to work with Osama bin Laden at all.
Saddam is now gone. So we can now look forward to the rebuilding of Iraq and the strengthening of the world economy.
A lot of the guys in my gunsmithing schools class are deeply political and feel very strongly about the war in Iraq. A lot of them have done a lot of research into Saddam Hussein’s role and feel like they’ve come into more questions than answers. A few of the questions they have, based on extensive online research, are:
>> Why was there a decision made on May 7, 2003 by Clinton-appointed U.S. District Judge Harold Baer Jr. that awarded two families of September 11, 2001 victims approximately $104 million in damages when their attorney proved that Saddam’s government provided what they called “material support” to al Qaeda in the September 11th attacks? How could this have been awarded when members of the U.S. government have outwardly stated that there is no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda?
>> Why did the White House never compile any information about the seemingly overwhelming evidence about Saddam’s “philanthropy of terror”?
>> Why were checks given to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers in Israel? How is this all connected?
I have my own opinions on these based on my own research and hope to bring to light some of these issues on this site in the future.