G
Guest
I came across this and thought it was quite interesting.
These are not my words.
Well, yeah the photos of the old Saddam and the shaven captured
'Saddam' are pretty much the same guy, but it's just a still photo
-and photos can be manipulated. In fact, that new guy photo was a
composite blend of old and new Saddams. A transition manipulation.
So here's how they did it. Saddam 1..... 2..... 3.....
1) The bearded 'Santa Saddam' was displayed in wide-screen format on
screens in a press briefing room in Baghdad. News organizations took
still photos of that video. The quality is pathetic and the lighting bizarre
) As well as that video, the US Military quickly released a still
photo of what they said was bearded 'Santa Saddam' --after his shave
and cleanup. They even gave the still photo the same background as
the bearded video. Total Boll**ks of course.
That was a prepared composite photo designed as a blend of
Old Saddam and the new replacement. It blended altered segments of
new Saddams nose and eyes and brows with old Saddam's chin.
It was the last time we were to see Saddam's chin ever again. 'Cos the
New Saddam doesn't have a jawline like the Old Saddam. And without a
beard you might see that New Saddam has a narrower head.
3) After an interval of many months, New Saddam emerges with features
like that still photo at time of capture but having lost weight and gained
a beard. Photos of the New Saddam are blasted at us repeatedly over
the following months, until we have forgotten Old Saddam entirely.
When the world's media showed up in Baghdad for the start of the trial,
they were bemused to find that no media would be allowed in the court
and the ONLY video was from a US Military feed --without sound. New
Saddam might look like the old guy, but he probably sounds more like Bugs Bunny.
The rest, as they say is history.
On Dec. 14, 2003, the Bush Administration announced the capture of Saddam Hussein. The US Administration wanted to present the capture of the supposed Saddam Hussein as a historical event. After studying and analyzing the pictures, the historical event turned to be a historical fraud. We are not assuming or suggesting that. We mean it and we can scientifically prove it. In this article we will see that the shaved Saddam's picture is no more than just an altered old picture.
http://bitterfact.tripod.com/iraq/saddam_fraud.html
Now consider these ideas if you will?
'CIA's bastard army ran riot in Balkans' backed extremists'
Peter Beaumont, Ed Vulliamy and Paul Beaver
Sunday March 11, 2001 The Observer
The CIA encouraged former Kosovo Liberation Army fighters to launch
a rebellion in southern Serbia in an effort to undermine the then Yugoslav
President Slobodan Milosevic, according to senior European officers
who served with the international peace-keeping force in Kosovo (K-For),
as well as leading Macedonian and US sources...... http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,449923,00.html
So, the CIA was apparently using any means to overthrow Slobodan.
But, what's wrong with this picture?
The U.S was also trying any means to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
Yet, we know he was a CIA asset when they backed him into power
in the first place. And, still a CIA asset when he invaded Kuwait.
So, apply the same logic to Slobodan. It fits.
Two 'evil dictators,' engineered into place to later provide the pretext
for G8 expansion to the south and west of the EU.
Both end up starring in high-profile court cases. Trials which quickly began,
so that they ran concurrent with US/NATO/EU occupation of the target countries.
Great propaganda for public support of the occupations.
I contend that not only were the two men on the CIA payroll, but so were
their families. In Slobodan's case, his son said Slobo was poisoned.
In Saddam's case, his wife reportedly said that the man in custody was
not Saddam. However her reported comments are sourced from the likes
of disinfo outlets like Pravda.ru. So why did that report appear. To stop
the 'conspiracy theorits from realizing the families are in on the game.
Slick.
So what have we got here?
Figure that Slobodan's son saying his father was poisoned, is a false-
controversy designed to make sure you believe Slobo is definitely dead.
It plays into the simplistic emotionalism of "CIA bastards killed him".
Whereas, actually it was simply time to retire him to the CIA safe house
network. "Job well done dude. Here's your gold watch."
Maybe you are figuring that can't be true. Figuring that the CIA would
just ice him to get rid of him.
No way. This is the real world. (Or rather, the Real Covert World )
In the real world, a policy of executing your agents when they are no
longer useful, is not a way to build a strong , loyal intelligence system.
It's a way to ensure distrust and double-cross that would main intel ops.
When you join the Firm, it's a job for life. Including retirement when the
operational phase is over. Families are in on the deal. Are you getting it?
Many dictators, whose 'death' is not required for operational reasons
are even now happily and openly living out their retirement. Why would
it be any different for special case mega-bad-guys like Saddam and Slobo?
So Slobo was not poisoned, and is not dead. An empty coffin flew to Russia.
He's just retired is all. Useful stooge. Public court spectacle. Then exit.
It would have been an identical M.O. with Saddam.
Useful stooge. Public court spectacle. Then exit.
Except Saddam, died of natural causes. Shit happens. No biggie.
That's why all the stories of Saddams' many doubles pre-invasion.
The f**ker was already dead, and a couple of 'ringers' were running
round to keep the show on the road. Saddam's sons were notionally
running things anyway -during that period, but in fact the agency
was running Iraq itself. The doubles story was necessary cover.
After all, some kind of 'Saddam' had top interract with the Iraqi civil
bureaucracy, otherwise rumors would quickly gain ground. And so,
the perfect cover was born: the Yanks are out to assassinate Saddam,
so he has to maintain an army of doubles. Laughable in retrospect.
Informed, deep word on the street in Iraq is that he died in late 1999.
That's consistent with the prominence of the Saddam Doubles story
during the period 2000 to 2003.
But the doubles story was a bit of an impediment to the subsequent use
of a high-quality double in the staged 'capture' and 'trial.' (Hey, the show
must go on.)
So, the media --mainstream and alternative-- dropped the issue when
Saddam was 'caught'. The 'many doubles' tale was binned in the memory hole.
That's how you know the doubles story was for operational reasons in the
pre-invasion phase. Only the fact that Saddam was actually dead would
have forced use of a cover which so deeply compromised the subsequent
use of a body double.
But, it only compromised the New Saddam with those damm "conspiracy theorists".
So, once again, no biggie. Plenty of CIA Fakes to smokescreen the truth.
Anyway, that's how the game is played. Democracy is a interesting idea,
whose weak point is the ability of money and intrigure to grease the path
to political party power for any number of Intel Stooges.
The PTB have use this loophole to engineer the rise of a raft of useful
political agents --from Tony Blair to Slobo to Saddam.
The CIA shove 'em onstage and pull 'em off at will.
Good guys, and bad guys.
Whatever the gullible sheep will buy.
Whatever makes 'em tick the little illusory boxes of 'Democracy.'
Works a treat.
What do you reckon?
Interesting...
These are not my words.
Well, yeah the photos of the old Saddam and the shaven captured
'Saddam' are pretty much the same guy, but it's just a still photo
-and photos can be manipulated. In fact, that new guy photo was a
composite blend of old and new Saddams. A transition manipulation.
So here's how they did it. Saddam 1..... 2..... 3.....
1) The bearded 'Santa Saddam' was displayed in wide-screen format on
screens in a press briefing room in Baghdad. News organizations took
still photos of that video. The quality is pathetic and the lighting bizarre
) As well as that video, the US Military quickly released a still
photo of what they said was bearded 'Santa Saddam' --after his shave
and cleanup. They even gave the still photo the same background as
the bearded video. Total Boll**ks of course.
That was a prepared composite photo designed as a blend of
Old Saddam and the new replacement. It blended altered segments of
new Saddams nose and eyes and brows with old Saddam's chin.
It was the last time we were to see Saddam's chin ever again. 'Cos the
New Saddam doesn't have a jawline like the Old Saddam. And without a
beard you might see that New Saddam has a narrower head.
3) After an interval of many months, New Saddam emerges with features
like that still photo at time of capture but having lost weight and gained
a beard. Photos of the New Saddam are blasted at us repeatedly over
the following months, until we have forgotten Old Saddam entirely.
When the world's media showed up in Baghdad for the start of the trial,
they were bemused to find that no media would be allowed in the court
and the ONLY video was from a US Military feed --without sound. New
Saddam might look like the old guy, but he probably sounds more like Bugs Bunny.
The rest, as they say is history.
On Dec. 14, 2003, the Bush Administration announced the capture of Saddam Hussein. The US Administration wanted to present the capture of the supposed Saddam Hussein as a historical event. After studying and analyzing the pictures, the historical event turned to be a historical fraud. We are not assuming or suggesting that. We mean it and we can scientifically prove it. In this article we will see that the shaved Saddam's picture is no more than just an altered old picture.
http://bitterfact.tripod.com/iraq/saddam_fraud.html
Now consider these ideas if you will?
'CIA's bastard army ran riot in Balkans' backed extremists'
Peter Beaumont, Ed Vulliamy and Paul Beaver
Sunday March 11, 2001 The Observer
The CIA encouraged former Kosovo Liberation Army fighters to launch
a rebellion in southern Serbia in an effort to undermine the then Yugoslav
President Slobodan Milosevic, according to senior European officers
who served with the international peace-keeping force in Kosovo (K-For),
as well as leading Macedonian and US sources...... http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,449923,00.html
So, the CIA was apparently using any means to overthrow Slobodan.
But, what's wrong with this picture?
The U.S was also trying any means to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
Yet, we know he was a CIA asset when they backed him into power
in the first place. And, still a CIA asset when he invaded Kuwait.
So, apply the same logic to Slobodan. It fits.
Two 'evil dictators,' engineered into place to later provide the pretext
for G8 expansion to the south and west of the EU.
Both end up starring in high-profile court cases. Trials which quickly began,
so that they ran concurrent with US/NATO/EU occupation of the target countries.
Great propaganda for public support of the occupations.
I contend that not only were the two men on the CIA payroll, but so were
their families. In Slobodan's case, his son said Slobo was poisoned.
In Saddam's case, his wife reportedly said that the man in custody was
not Saddam. However her reported comments are sourced from the likes
of disinfo outlets like Pravda.ru. So why did that report appear. To stop
the 'conspiracy theorits from realizing the families are in on the game.
Slick.
So what have we got here?
Figure that Slobodan's son saying his father was poisoned, is a false-
controversy designed to make sure you believe Slobo is definitely dead.
It plays into the simplistic emotionalism of "CIA bastards killed him".
Whereas, actually it was simply time to retire him to the CIA safe house
network. "Job well done dude. Here's your gold watch."
Maybe you are figuring that can't be true. Figuring that the CIA would
just ice him to get rid of him.
No way. This is the real world. (Or rather, the Real Covert World )
In the real world, a policy of executing your agents when they are no
longer useful, is not a way to build a strong , loyal intelligence system.
It's a way to ensure distrust and double-cross that would main intel ops.
When you join the Firm, it's a job for life. Including retirement when the
operational phase is over. Families are in on the deal. Are you getting it?
Many dictators, whose 'death' is not required for operational reasons
are even now happily and openly living out their retirement. Why would
it be any different for special case mega-bad-guys like Saddam and Slobo?
So Slobo was not poisoned, and is not dead. An empty coffin flew to Russia.
He's just retired is all. Useful stooge. Public court spectacle. Then exit.
It would have been an identical M.O. with Saddam.
Useful stooge. Public court spectacle. Then exit.
Except Saddam, died of natural causes. Shit happens. No biggie.
That's why all the stories of Saddams' many doubles pre-invasion.
The f**ker was already dead, and a couple of 'ringers' were running
round to keep the show on the road. Saddam's sons were notionally
running things anyway -during that period, but in fact the agency
was running Iraq itself. The doubles story was necessary cover.
After all, some kind of 'Saddam' had top interract with the Iraqi civil
bureaucracy, otherwise rumors would quickly gain ground. And so,
the perfect cover was born: the Yanks are out to assassinate Saddam,
so he has to maintain an army of doubles. Laughable in retrospect.
Informed, deep word on the street in Iraq is that he died in late 1999.
That's consistent with the prominence of the Saddam Doubles story
during the period 2000 to 2003.
But the doubles story was a bit of an impediment to the subsequent use
of a high-quality double in the staged 'capture' and 'trial.' (Hey, the show
must go on.)
So, the media --mainstream and alternative-- dropped the issue when
Saddam was 'caught'. The 'many doubles' tale was binned in the memory hole.
That's how you know the doubles story was for operational reasons in the
pre-invasion phase. Only the fact that Saddam was actually dead would
have forced use of a cover which so deeply compromised the subsequent
use of a body double.
But, it only compromised the New Saddam with those damm "conspiracy theorists".
So, once again, no biggie. Plenty of CIA Fakes to smokescreen the truth.
Anyway, that's how the game is played. Democracy is a interesting idea,
whose weak point is the ability of money and intrigure to grease the path
to political party power for any number of Intel Stooges.
The PTB have use this loophole to engineer the rise of a raft of useful
political agents --from Tony Blair to Slobo to Saddam.
The CIA shove 'em onstage and pull 'em off at will.
Good guys, and bad guys.
Whatever the gullible sheep will buy.
Whatever makes 'em tick the little illusory boxes of 'Democracy.'
Works a treat.
What do you reckon?
Interesting...
