Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

pcd2k · Mar 16, 2005, 02:32 AM

Ex-Marine Says Public Version of Saddam Capture Fiction

United Press International

A former U.S. Marine who participated in capturing ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein said the public version of his capture was fabricated.

Ex-Sgt. Nadim Abou Rabeh, of Lebanese descent, was quoted in the Saudi daily al-Medina Wednesday as saying Saddam was actually captured Friday, Dec. 12, 2003, and not the day after, as announced by the U.S. Army.

"I was among the 20-man unit, including eight of Arab descent, who searched for Saddam for three days in the area of Dour near Tikrit, and we found him in a modest home in a small village and not in a hole as announced," Abou Rabeh said.

"We captured him after fierce resistance during which a Marine of Sudanese origin was killed," he said.

He said Saddam himself fired at them with a gun from the window of a room on the second floor. Then they shouted at him in Arabic: "You have to surrender. ... There is no point in resisting."

"Later on, a military production team fabricated the film of Saddam's capture in a hole, which was in fact a deserted well," Abou Rabeh said.

Abou Rabeh was interviewed in Lebanon.

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 16, 2005, 06:10 AM

No. I don't have the links handy, but I have seen blog entries where military people debunked the story. Most particularly, they pointed out that there were no Marines in Iraq at the time Saddam was captured. He was captured by the Army.

If there were no Marines in Iraq at the time, no alleged ex-Marine could have been a witness. Ergo: his story is a fake. He's probably just a publicity seeker.

spacefreak · Mar 16, 2005, 09:59 AM

I actually don't care if the story is true or not.

Much of this war is being fought through the media. IF the story were to be true, and if our top dogs felt it was a more effective blow to the Baathists and insurgents to show Saddam coming out of a rat hole, then so be it. Saddam was still captured, and he will still face trial.

dcmacdaddy · Mar 17, 2005, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I actually don't care if the story is true or not.

Much of this war is being fought through the media. IF the story were to be true, and if our top dogs felt it was a more effective blow to the Baathists and insurgents to show Saddam coming out of a rat hole, then so be it. Saddam was still captured, and he will still face trial.

So, you don't care about the truth of this story--I think it is a fabrication, myself--as much as you do the outcome (Saddam being captured)? Does this general by-any-means-necessary approach apply to all facets of fighting, and winning, the war in Iraq?

zizban · Mar 17, 2005, 10:09 AM

This stpry is becoming an urban myth. I bet we'll see it again here in oh, a year.

Athens · Mar 17, 2005, 12:14 PM

i belive this story is fake but I wouldnt be surprised of there are some elements of distorted truth in it.

mitchell_pgh · Mar 17, 2005, 01:01 PM

There have been a few reports about this. The military has confirmed that they do not have anyone by the name of Nadim Abou Rabeh in the military.

mitchell_pgh · Mar 17, 2005, 01:03 PM

https://lnweb1.manpower.usmc.mil/man...ion.nsf/search

Check this out...

James L · Mar 17, 2005, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
So, you don't care about the truth of this story...

Well, to be fair, the invasion of Iraq was based on lies anyway, which many people fell for, so why stop now?

On another note, does anybody find it kinda wierd that we are seeking clarification for a story, that may or may not have happened, during an invasion that occured thousands of miles away, on a computer based internet forum?

God bless the 'net!

spacefreak · Mar 17, 2005, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
Does this general by-any-means-necessary approach apply to all facets of fighting, and winning, the war in Iraq?

Yes. Obviously, we have broader and tangental goals to achieve in Iraq and the War on Terror, so our approach is tailored in ways.

When it is full scale warfare on battlefields - when all military branches are fully engaged with the enemy - I support the use of psychological warfare as a means of weakening the enemy. If that includes altering or delaying the announcement of the capture of the enemy leader, then so be it.

Zimphire · Mar 18, 2005, 06:12 AM

Originally posted by James L:
Well, to be fair, the invasion of Iraq was based on lies anyway, which many people fell for, so why stop now?

Yeah Clinton was such a liar I guess.

Athens · Mar 18, 2005, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yeah Clinton was such a liar I guess.

LOL I think you ment Bush partner....

James L · Mar 18, 2005, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yeah Clinton was such a liar I guess.

Well, duh, does the phrase "sexual relations" mean anything to you?

zizban · Mar 18, 2005, 02:07 PM

Number of US military personell killed by Clinton's lies: 0
Number of US militray personell killed by Bush's lies: 1520

Athens · Mar 18, 2005, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by James L:
Well, duh, does the phrase "sexual relations" mean anything to you?

I stand corrected LOL I forgot about that.

James L · Mar 18, 2005, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by Athens:
I stand corrected LOL I forgot about that.

I actually think what Zimph was referring to is the fact that the Clinton administration had plans to go into Afghanistan too, but couldn't justify it. They also were looking at Saddam, but didn't follow through with anything significant.

I could be wrong though, I got sidetracked by a girl in a blue dress with a cigar going into a McDonalds.

Zimphire · Mar 19, 2005, 05:58 AM

Originally posted by Athens:
LOL I think you ment Bush partner....

Nope

Athens · Mar 19, 2005, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Nope

How does that relate to Clinton being a Liar (sexual lies excluded)

Zimphire · Mar 19, 2005, 07:18 AM

Originally posted by Athens:
How does that relate to Clinton being a Liar (sexual lies excluded)

The same supposed "lies" that the war was based on, came from the Clinton era.

Read the page. It sounds like Bush himself.

For example.

The president urged Americans to be ready for a possible attack on Iraq, and he warned that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had used biological weapons against his own people -- and would likely use the weapons again unless he were prevented from doing so.

Hussein, said the president, "threatens the security of all the rest of us."

Clinton said Iraq still posed a threat to the national security of the United States and the "freedom-loving world."

Clinton, who has ordered military forces to the gulf region in case a military strike is needed, warned Hussein not to continue to delay or oppose the U.N. demands on weapons inspections: "He, and he alone, will be to blame for the consequences." just like now.

"A military operation cannot destroy all the weapons of mass destruction capacity. But it can, and will, leave him (Hussein) significantly worse off than he is now, in terms of the ability to threaten the world with these weapons or to attack his neighbors," Clinton said.

"Force can never be the first answer," he emphasized, "but sometimes it's the only answer."

Reacting to Clinton's speech, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz denounced the threat of military action.

"The United States doesn't have authorization by the Security Council to attack Iraq by military means," he told CNN in a telephone interview from Baghdad.

Washington insists U.N. resolutions in effect since the Gulf War provide all the authorization needed for an attack.

Aziz also rejected the U.S. assertion that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are a threat to neighboring countries.

"Among all our neighbors, only Kuwait has joined the American plan to attack Iraq," he said. "So if all our neighbors are really threatened by us, why didn't they join the (U.S.-led) coalition."

Bush was going by the information that was handed down to him.

Thing is, I wasn't a Clinton fan by then. I voted for him his first term, but didn't his second.

I applauded ANY effort he made to smack down Saddam. Political bias aside.

Athens · Mar 19, 2005, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The same supposed "lies" that the war was based on, came from the Clinton era.

Read the page. It sounds like Bush himself.

For example.

[/b]

[/b]

[/b]

Bush was going by the information that was handed down to him.

Thing is, I wasn't a Clinton fan by then. I voted for him his first term, but didn't his second.

I applauded ANY effort he made to smack down Saddam. Political bias aside. [/B]

Except Clinton was talking about military strikes, not a full out invasion. There is a difference between strikes and invasion. I would have had no beef if the US had just shot a few missiles and blew a few things up.

Zimphire · 09:40 AM

So it's ok to kill innocent people, as long as you don't stay and topple their gov that causes the very people grief?

Ok.

Athens · Mar 19, 2005, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
So it's ok to kill innocent people, as long as you don't stay and topple their gov that causes the very people grief?

Ok.

Military strikes on military targets, big difference, man I thought you where smarter then that.

Zimphire · Mar 19, 2005, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by Athens:
Military strikes on military targets, big difference

AGAIN, Clinton ordered strikes that killed innocent victims for the same reasons Bush did.

What is your excuse?

man I thought you where smarter then that.

How condescendingly silly.