[WeeklyUniverse.com]
Let us analyze
what has been reported by CNN and other sources, and some other known facts.
It is
known that Saddam has several doubles.
Saddam
was reportedly captured in a "hole", with minimum commodities.
I believe
his subordinates could have created a little bunker for their commander,
deep in the earth and with sufficient reserves of food and beverage, where
he could hide and direct their guerrilla war. That the military found
a hole instead of a bunker may mean the person found was not Saddam, but
his double. If the U.S. military wants to think that their enemy
is so silly and helpless, it's their right. It may be, however, that
they know they captured Saddam's double, but intentionally claim it is
Saddam, because such a news:
A)
Inspires our troops and all of us Americans;
B) Shows our
enemy in a very pitiful situation;
C) Allows to
organize a military
tribunal, since "Saddam" is captured.
Maybe
the U.S. military has itself created a full double for Saddam? It
is not as hard as may seem. Today's technologies allow many possibilites.
Finally,
compare the behavior of captured dictators Saddam Hussein and Slobodan
Milosevic. When Milosevic was arrested, he behaved quite adequately
and no TV channel showed him like half an idiot. But Saddam, or "Saddam",
said different unclever things, for example:
Q:
"How are you?"
A: "I am sad
because my people are in bondage"
(Offered a
glass of water)
A: "If I drink
water I will have to go to the bathroom, and how can I use the bathroom
when my people are in bondage?"
Repetitive
"bondage" makes think that the conversation is unnatural. Indeed,
I am sad as my people are in bondage, and how can I drink if I will need
to go thereafter to the bathroom (maybe restroom?), and how can I use the
bathroom or restroom if my people are still in bondage?
Q:
"If you had no weapons of mass destruction then why not let the U.N. inspectors
into your facilities?"
A: "We didn't
want them to go into the presidential areas and intrude on our privacy."
Yes. Saddam was disturbed about his presidential apartments, but
certainly not about military
units where he allowed the inspectors into. Don't TV watchers and
newspaper readers see that he is an idiot?
Did Milosevic
say anything similar to this when he was arrested? Saddam was a dictator
of Milosevic's level, or better to say, Milosevic was a dictator of Saddam's
level.
It is
either a Saddam double who was created by the US military and said all
these answers to show the audience what an unclever person Saddam was and
is -- or it is his own double whom Saddam himself arranged to be caught
(please see about this version below). It resembles the "public relations"
practice in some backward countries when a double of, say, a candidate
to mayor or parliament's deputy (arranged by the candidate's rival) comes
to you in person and says some very "clever" things; often such a "double"
is drunk. Some people don't understand that a candidate to mayor
or deputy just cannot come to inhabitants in person, moreover drunk, and
get a very poor impression of this candidate.
I don't
defend Saddam, but let us be unbiased. Our enemies cannot be as silly
as we want them to be. For example, when shah Reza Pehlevi ruled
Iran, you could think that it was 45,000 American military and other specialists
that were the principal support to his regime. But the reality showed
that things were absolutely contrary. When in 1979 Iranians insurged
against Reza Pehlevi, 45,000 Americans couldn't do anything to help his
regime. Evidently, it was the regime and its security service "SAVAC"
who made American presence in Iran possible, and not American specialists
who made the regime's presence possible in Iran.
It may
also be that it is Saddam's own double (not made up by US military), who
was captured, and he maybe intentionally responds so silly, for Saddam
his boss. An old rule of war says:
1)
If you are weak then show that you are strong;
2) If you are
strong then show that you are weak;
3) If you a-far
then show that you are close;
4) If you close
then show that you are a-far; etc.
Continuing
this row of strategems, we can compose the 5th one:
5)
If you have something on mind then show that you don't;
6) If you have
nothing on mind then show that you do.
Because
of this, I dare to believe it is somewhat more probable that it was Saddam's
own double whom we got in a not very deep hole with a minimum of commodities.
"But
the photographs
seem to show a real Saddam". Why not to have an expert
determine this?
Copyright 2003 by Der Voron.
