Posted on 09/21/2014 8:46:09 PM PDT by WilliamIII
“People with real power put puppets in government to rule over the “sheeple”.”
Most of the time that’s right. But even sheeple sometimes wake up.
Egypt is a good recent example of the sheeple waking up and telling the elites and the powers that be in Washington and Europe what to do with the their ideas of who should rule Egypt.
The French revolution is another example. Within a short couple of years a system that had been in place for hundreds of years was decapitated (literally).
Provide the link
Surprised ?
I’ll post the link, in an effort to get both conservatives and liberals off their butt and start researching new world order. All it takes is searching the web, in this case for three words: saddam cia assassin
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/14/opinion/a-tyrant-40-years-in-the-making.html
Sheeple need to wake up.
French Revolution was new world order.
Egypt revolution was new world order.
Mubarak was nwo’s guy, they were disposing of him.
That’s funny, common sense tells me that Saddam Hussein began as a pan-Arab supporter of the Ba’ath Party. And that the Saddam-as-CIA puppet story is rubbish.
Imagine that. Maybe that’s why claims of ‘common sense’ don’t work all that well. And it’s why people get challenged to provide evidence to back their claims.
For those interested in that timeframe in that part of the world, Iran is an interesting study of CIA/MI6/big oil involvment in the postwar years.
Valerie Jarrett came to be born in Iran because her daddy was working as a dentist there. There’s rumor that he was working for the company, but all I find is rumor, not anything that I could verify definitively.
See, there’s all connections at the top, that us little people generally have no clue about. What with all the sports on TV and political arguing on the innermenet, it’s hard to find time to research any facts to understand what’s behind what we see in our daily news impressioning.
eh, Iraq was muslim under Saddam and Muslim under the IS. No difference between the two.
What went wrong with Bush’s Iraq plan was the notion that one can build a western style Democracy in Iraq after we won. We should’ve let the Iraqis to re-create their own political system and arranged we recieve a financial payout for freeing them of Saddam.
Bingo.
Here’s a link from a nice new world order organization, Global Policy Forum.
As usual, we can get some information right from nwo themselves:
Take a look at the link, it has a nice picture:
Picture: Donald Rumsfeld, then special US envoy, shaking hands with Saddam Hussein during a visit to Iraq in December, 1983.
It IS Bush’s fault.
It’s true that Obama threw every soldier who died freeing Iraq from Saddam in the garbage. He handed Iraq over to Al Qaeda (ISIS).
But Bush went into Iraq knowing Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, and knowing that the SAUDIS ran 9/11. Bush did it because the Saudis wanted it, because the Bushes are as corrupt as Clinton and Obama, and were purchased years ago by the Saudis—as were Clinton and Obama.
Yes, Obama did the FINAL act of handing Iraq over to Al Qaeda (ISIS), but Bush toppled Saddam at the behest of the Saudis.
Let there be no nostalgia for the “patriotic” Bushes. They are no more patriotic than Clinton or Obama.
Yawn. Just everyone getting their Bush’s fault to take all blame from King Putt I.
ISIS, ergo Sunni regional supremacy, was the driving force of Saddam’s Ba’athist party. The author won’t accept this because his own Sunni-supremacist ego compels him to blame someone else for ISIS rather than admit it is a supremacist organization.
Hint: The author is an ISIS sympathizer.
Oh that’s right, I forgot - the Rockefellers!
Moslems deny any power of the people to legislate or elect legislators. No human has any power to make law. Sharia Law was dictated by Allah (Satan), and is the only possible law.
That’s why a serious Moslem cannot be an American.
“Surprised ?’
Not at all since that link doesn’t back your claim that Saddam Hussein was an “assassin working for the CIA”.
I’ve learned that you like to claim that sources back your conspiracy theories when they don’t.
That article that you link to tells a story of the CIA backing the Ba’ath Party and a coup in Iraq in 1963.
A previous coup in 1958 (was the CIA asleep?) overthrew the Iraqi monarchy, and Abdel Karim Kassem set himself up as prime minister with Muhammad Najib ar-Ruba’i as first President of Iraq. Abdel Karim Kassem was overthrown by the 1963 coup. Did 26 year old Saddam Hussein take power? No, Iraq was then led by Abdul Salam Arif.
Abdul Salam Arif served as the second President of Iraq until 1966 when he died in a helicopter accident. Well did 29 year old Saddam Hussein then take power? No, Abdul Rahman Arif became Iraq’s third President.
Abdul Rahman Arif served as 3rd President until he was overthrown by yet another coup in 1968 (I guess that first CIA coup just couldn’t keep its NWO puppets in line). So did Saddam finally get his chance? No, Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr became the 4th President of Iraq. Well surely he died quickly so that the CIA could put its assassin-puppet in charge?
No. Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr stayed in charge for 11 years until he resigned from office in 1979, most likely forced out by Saddam Hussein. Saddam has to be the most patient assassin in history since it took him 16 years to get the top job, and even then he forgot to kill his predecessor.
So good try Pieter. Maybe you’ll find a source that actually does back your Saddam Hussein, CIA Assassin, story. But until then it’s just one more in your impressive series of conspiracy stories that don’t stand up under inspection.
No,they don’t exist.
Let’s just keep voting for conservatives, yeh, that’s the ticket.
If we can get a “good politician” elected, we can go to war against the “bad guys”, and they’ll create jobs in America !
And we’ll never have to trouble ourselves thinking - government will provide all we need, you know, just in case those jobs don’t materialize.
It’s the unicorns. They rule the world.
From the article
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/14/opinion/a-tyrant-40-years-in-the-making.html
“According to the former Baathist leader Hani Fkaiki, among party members colluding with the C.I.A. in 1962 and 1963 was Saddam Hussein, then a 25-year-old who had fled to Cairo after taking part in a failed assassination of Kassem in 1958.”
He was an assassin by 1958, and he was working for the CIA by 1962-3.
If you read on:
“According to Western scholars, as well as Iraqi refugees and a British human rights organization, the 1963 coup was accompanied by a bloodbath. Using lists of suspected Communists and other leftists provided by the C.I.A., the Baathists systematically murdered untold numbers of Iraq’s educated elite — killings in which Saddam Hussein himself is said to have participated.”
So he is said to have continued his career as a killer as he began colluding with the CIA in 1962-3.
I did not assert that the first person he killed would be the leader of Iraq and that he would then take power himself. Assassins are never the people who take power, they’re low level flunkies paid to clear the way for someone else to take power.
Thanks - I forgot about the unicorns.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.