Saddam Hussein's interview for CBS

14.03.03, 22:58
Saddam Hussein's interview by Mr. Dan Rather of CBS (part I)

Baghdad, on 24 Feb. 2003


Saddam Hussein on destroying the Soumoud Missiles:

We are committed to dealing and implementing Resolution 1441 as
demanded by the United Nations. It is on this basis that we have acted and
shall continue to act. As you know, Iraq is allowed under UN resolutions, to
develop land-to-land missiles of a range of 150 kilometers. And we are
committed to complying to these specifications. We have no missiles exceeding
this range, and the inspection teams have searched everywhere. Indeed I think
you should seek an answer to this question from them.

I believe that the US and the world should know by now that Iraq
does not possess any of the weapons claimed by top-ranking officials in the
US and the UK.

I think that part of this fabricated campaign, together with the
military build-up underway, is meant to cover the huge lie that Iraq is in
possession of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction,
and it is on this basis that Resolution 1441 was adopted. Although Iraq is
absolutely certain that it is void of any WMDs, as indeed has been confirmed
by all officials concerned, and in order that Iraq’s position may not be
misinterpreted, Iraq has accepted Resolution 1441 so that the facts are made
clear. This is why, missiles such as the ones you are referring to, which
exceed in range the limits set under UN resolutions, do not exist in Iraq any
longer, because they have all been destroyed in the past as announced at the
time.

S.H. on core-issues:


In all divine religions, God has stressed to mankind in all
scriptures, that the two most important things in life, after the creation of
man and faith, are food and peace. This is true of Islam, Christianity and
other religions. So peace, i.e. security, is an issue most fundamental to
one’s life and to the lives of others. Add to this man’s right to live, not
only in the sense of having food, but also in exercising his role vis-a-vis
his own humanity and the humanity of others. I believe this is the core issue.

S.H. on expecting US war or invasion:



We hope it will not happen; but we are bracing ourselves to such
an eventuality. You have, no doubt, observed the normalcy prevailing in
public life in Iraq. People are getting married, making friends, maintaining
normal relations with neighbours and relatives, travelling around the
country, and enjoying life as much as they can. Yet, they are preparing
themselves at the same time for this eventuality which is being talked about
by US officials. Therefore, our people will continue be prepared, while we
pray God Almighty to spare the Americans the experience of going down this
road, and to spare the Iraqis the evil of those who ride the bandwagon of
evil to launch aggression against Iraq.

S.H. on possibility of being killed or captured:


We, as believers, accept God’s will, whatever it may be. There is
no value for life without faith. A true believer accepts his fate while
taking precautions at the same time not to fall in precipice of death, or any
such precipice which his enemy may try dig for him. Prior to the Revolution
of July 1958, we were ordinary citizens among people many of whom found it
difficult to purchase shoes to wear, not only in the countryside, but in the
cities as well, and many in fact were deprived of the simplest necessities of
life. At that time, we had placed ourselves at the service of our people,
having first relied on God Almighty, with all the dangers that we had to face
in those days, the kind of dangers that are well known; and I do not want
here to indulge in these details.

At that time, we never asked whether we were going to live or
die. We had put our faith in God because what was essential to us was the
kind of virtues of service to the people that would please God. Now that we
have become leaders, with positions in the government, as President, Vice-
President, Ministers, etc, it cannot be morally acceptable for us to change
our stance. When we were fighters for freedom, our people believed us and
followed the banner of the Revolution until victory. In spite of the great
difficulties faced by our people along that course, difficulties well-known
to the world, our people remained true to their principles.

So, I believe it is not right for a leader to ask himself whether
he is going to live or die. Indeed, the basic question should be, to what
extent will he remain true to his people and to humanity at large. There and
then, God’s will shall prevail unimpeded; for I believe that no power on
earth can do anything contrary to God’s desire.

S.H. on ties with Usama bin Laden:


Is this the basis of concern amongst US officials? Or is it the
basis of concern for the American people only?

Dan Rather: Mr. President. I can confirm to Your Excellency accurately and
sincerely that this question is a main concern in the minds of the American
people.

S.H.:

This subject emerged only recently amongst the concerns of US officials, that
is after they had realized that their allegations about Iraq acquiring WMD
after 1998 may be exposed at the UN for what they really are( i.e. mere
allegations), which would be embarrassing to them, so they began talking
about the possibility of some connections between Iraq and Mr. Usama bin
Laden. By the way, the same subject was also raised with me by Mr. Tony Benn,
and I gave him my unequivocal answer which I shall repeat to you just as
clearly now: Iraq has no relations whatsoever with Mr. Usama bin Laden, and I
believe that Usama bin Laden himself answered this question in a recent
speech by him.

Dan Rather: Do you agree or disagree, in principle, with the attacks of 11
September?

S.H.:
Our principles are not only nationalist and Pan-Arab, but they
are humane as well. We believe that the world must seek opportunities for
peace, not opportunities for fighting, war, inflicting harm or vengence. We
had believed in these principles long before we became leaders, and have made
them our practice with our people since we assumed leadership. But we
believe, on the basis of God’s teachings to us, as He also instructed mankind
at large, under other religions, that there must be a law governing the
conduct of humanity, a law which does not allow an aggressor to commit
aggression while others remain silent, a killer to perpetrate murder while
other applaud his deed, or an invader to occupy other countries while others
make no move. In sum, we believe in the principles enshrined in the Charter
of the United Nations, which stipulate that when one is aggressed against one
has the right to repel aggression. The UN Charter was not drafted by Muslims
yet, we believe in it.

S.H. on asylum:

I take Mr. Rather’s motive in this question to excitement, which is an
American way of interviewing which some people may not like; but, as far as I
am concerned, I can understand it; however, I shall answer your question: I
was born here in Iraq. And I was born as a true Arab believer. I am proud,
and I have taught my children to be proud, of the value of Arab history in
all its human dimensions, and of all the stances of faith which every
believer, man or woman, should take. I also taught my children the importance
and value of patriotism and the homeland, and to be true to their honour and
their people. And now I am teaching this to my grandchildren. This is how we
have been talking to the people of Iraq since the days of our struggle
underground. I believe that it shall not be acceptable for any leader who
talks to his peop
    • people-against-war.net Re: Saddam Hussein's interview for CBS - part II 14.03.03, 23:00
      S.H. on asylum:

      I take Mr. Rather’s motive in this question to excitement, which is an American
      way of interviewing which some people may not like; but, as far as I am
      concerned, I can understand it; however, I shall answer your question: I was
      born here in Iraq. And I was born as a true Arab believer. I am proud, and I
      have taught my children to be proud, of the value of Arab history in all its
      human dimensions, and of all the stances of faith which every believer, man or
      woman, should take. I also taught my children the importance and value of
      patriotism and the homeland, and to be true to their honour and their people.
      And now I am teaching this to my grandchildren. This is how we have been
      talking to the people of Iraq since the days of our struggle underground. I
      believe that it shall not be acceptable for any leader who talks to his people
      and to mankind at large about principles in a manner that sounds genuine before
      coming to power, and then changes his discourse when he is in power. As for us,
      we do not change, because our basic premise is that we were born in Iraq as
      part of a great and glorious nation, and have lived in Iraq, blessed by God
      Almighty to be, through the will of the Iraqi people, in our present status and
      position. Therefore, we shall die here in Iraq, or on the soil of our nation,
      according to the will of God.

      As for the question of asylum, we think that only he who forsakes
      his nation will seek to save himself. But he who is committed to the honour of
      defending his country and people, children men and women, shall abide by the
      same moral values that he has talked about to his people, never abandoning
      these values. Indeed, let me say again, maybe Mr. Rather, is after excitement
      in this question. But what ought to be said here is that whoever asks Saddam
      Hussein to take asylum in his country is a man without morals, because what his
      offer mean would be an insult to the people of Iraq. He would be saying to the
      Iraqis:” Your unanimous decision to choose Saddam Hussein as your leader is of
      no value. Which is why I will ask him, or convince him, to relinquish power and
      leave you to the mercy of beasts without a leadership. So rest assured that
      this matter is alient to the ethics of Saddam Hussein. Then, again, as a
      journalist, you raise questions such as this one for purposes of excitement,
      and for some an answer as well; and I can understand that. But I believe that
      he who speaks about destiny of a country as if it can be determined by another
      country, would be committing a grave sin. We believe that destiny is determined
      by God; for however powerful, tyrannical or capable of destruction a particular
      country may be, it cannot coerce the will of a people resolved to live in
      freedom and dignity and to defend its honour, integrity, homeland and
      sanctities.

      You remember that in 1991, Mr. Tariq Aziz, then our foreign
      minister, met Mr. James Baker who wanted Mr. Aziz to convey to the Iraqi
      leadership the threat of pushing Iraq back into the pre-industrial age. So the
      attack on Iraq continued for one month and a half, during which time 3000
      warplanes were used against Iraq, together with missiles and some 2700
      helicopter gunships, with troops from 28 countries. Nevertheless, Iraq was not
      pushed back to the pre-industrial age. True, a lot of destruction was brought
      to our bridges, churches, mosques, temples, universities, palaces, plants and
      factories, and a lot of killing was inflicted on our children, women and the
      elderly. But the Iraqis, driven by their resolve after relying on God
      Almighty, have rebuilt everything, in the light of which US officials started
      claiming that, the withdrawal of UNSCOM, (which by the way- was done upon US
      instruction, may have enabled Iraq to develop weapons of mass destruction. Then
      they began saying that they had intelligence to the effect that Iraq had
      developed such weapons. We, on the other hand, say that we do not have such
      weapons. But what does all this mean? It means that Baker’s threat of 1991 had
      not come true. So any talk about the possibilities of metamorphosing Iraq is
      unfair both to God Almighty, Who doesn’t need the fairness from those whom He
      creates, but expects only their devotion, as well as to the Iraqis and to their
      potential as a people in confronting adversity with talent, creativity and
      productive work.

      We hope and pray that war will not take place; but if it were to
      happen, Iraq will still be there. A country, such as ours, with 8000 years of
      civilization behind it, which was indeed the cradle of man first civilization,
      cannot be imagined to simply diminish simply because an external power wants or
      imagines, for some reason, to put an end to its role.

      S.H. on the belief in victory:


      You know that in both situations( that is in 1990-91 and now), we
      did not cross the Atlantic to commit aggression against the United States. We,
      as people, armed forces and leadership, are here at home in Iraq when US
      officials are declaring their intentions to perpetrate aggression against Iraq,
      Is it not part of our responsibility and the basic meaning of our patriotism,
      moral commitment and faith to say to the coming aggressor: “ If you commit
      aggression against us, we shall not succumb.” And if we were to reserve this
      question by putting it to any honest US citizen, in his own country of the USA,
      including Mr. Rather, and said to him: Let us suppose that at any time in the
      future, power will revert to a country other than the USA, and then this power
      decides to cross the Atlantic to occupy you, will you surrender or will you
      resist? Let me answer by saying to all good Americans, if you happen to face
      any such situation in the future, do not succumb, but resist and defend your
      country and your honour as a people. But you ought not to commit aggression on
      others.

      As you know, we have not committed aggression against the USA,
      while the US government is inflicting death on our children, our women and the
      elderly, burning our crops and destroying our property on a daily basis. Even
      now, as I am sitting with you here, US warplanes may be raiding the northern or
      southern parts of Iraq to drop their lethal cargo on our population and our
      property which, be it private or public, belongs to the people in all
      circumstances.

      So, when if the world is governed by the law of the strong: a law
      according to which the weak must accept being hegemonized by the strong who
      possess the supremacy of destructive force, then such a law will be void of the
      most basic elements of morality and of the simplest meanings of faith,
      regardless who you are and what faith you believe in. This means capitulation
      to the law of the jungle; and we, as true believers, refuse to surrender to the
      law of the jungle. It is our duty, under the rules of the honour of
      responsibility, that we defend our country, our children and our people. We
      shall never surrender, neither to the USA, nor to any other power, even if the
      US power of destruction were to become many many times its present size, we
      shall continue to resist aggression, and shall fight with honour, and victory
      can come only from God Almighty.

      Let me, however, make a correction about history, which should be
      important to you and to the American people. In 1991 Iraq was not defeated. We
      withdrew from Kuwait by our own decision. True we were under bombardment; but
      once we were inside Iraq, neither the army, nor the people, of Iraq was
      defeated. You must remember this fact, or have seen in the writings which have
      since appeared about what actually took place in the tank-battle near Basrah,
      and how Mr. Bush, the father, delivered a speech declari
      • people-against-war.net Re: Saddam Hussein's interview for CBS - part III 14.03.03, 23:02
        Let me, however, make a correction about history, which should be
        important to you and to the American people. In 1991 Iraq was not defeated. We
        withdrew from Kuwait by our own decision. True we were under bombardment; but
        once we were inside Iraq, neither the army, nor the people, of Iraq was
        defeated. You must remember this fact, or have seen in the writings which have
        since appeared about what actually took place in the tank-battle near Basrah,
        and how Mr. Bush, the father, delivered a speech declaring an unconditional
        ceasefire, except for when their forces are fired at, in which case they would
        retaliate. So Iraq was not defeated in 1991

        Let me also explain to you, Mr. Rather, why I refer to former
        President Bush as ( Mr.) Bush. It is because I respect people. When Khumeini
        died ( May his soul rest in peace), and I received the news of his death, I
        told our Minister of information at that time: Don’t gloat over his death, for
        this is the law of God. Interestingly enough, let me tell you that I hadn’t
        used to refer to President George Bush, Sr., as ( Mr.) Bush when he was in
        office. But from the day he left office, I began calling him Mr. Bush whenever
        his name came up. In any case, the law of faith says this: you must respect
        even your enemy as a human being.

        S.H. on confirming that 1991 was a defeat to Iraq:

        Let me answer this question. You know goals of Bush, the father,
        and why he repeated his attacks later. Why did he come back to repeat his
        military strikes against us when he was President of the USA if we had been
        defeated. So when a military conflict takes place, the war includes advance and
        retreat. Mr. Bush, Sr., had mobilized 28 armies and 42 countries against us at
        the time; and when we saw the world collaborating in a military operation on
        the field against our country and our armed forces, we withdrew our armies from
        Kuwait, without losing more than 10% of our hardware in one and a half months
        of fighting on the battle field; so we withdrew in order to be able to carry on
        fighting inside Iraq. And we did fight on, and defeated the tanks that came to
        fight us on the outskirts of Basrah. This has been written about in the books
        published by American military experts.

        So, in actual fact, the ceasefire declaration was issued by Mr.
        Bush, the father, without having consulted his allies to announce that the
        military offensive had achieved its objectives which was why they wanted to
        stop the war unconditionally.

        So we lost a battle, but were not defeated. You know that the war
        between our country and Iran had lasted eight years during which Iran lost
        battles to us and we lost others to them. But how are things measured. They are
        measured on the basis of the final outcome. The United States can inflict
        destruction, but the question remains: Why keep destroying? Why make the world
        your enemy? Did the Americans develop their weapons in order to destroy the
        world? Or, Did their scientists and tax-payers work and pay for weapons for the
        defense of the United States? I believe that when American scientists developed
        weaponry, and when American tax-payers paid, and continue to pay for the
        weapons, then what they had in mind must have been the defense of the United
        States. But is it wise for anyone, any official, in possession of military
        supremacy, to commit aggression on others, destroy them, kill their people and
        their children simply because they say Allah is our God and we believe in Him,
        and we shall defend our freedom and our right to independence and dignity and
        to make our own choices in life while respecting others? What does Iraq
        threaten the United States with? Iraq has not committed aggression against the
        USA. Neither the people, nor the officials, of this country have said at any
        time that they are enemies of the United States, or enemies of the American
        people and their national choices. Is it right for any superior power to
        aggress against others? Is it right to do that because of ambitions coveted or
        desired by companies of special interests?

        Mr. Rather, you are an experienced man and must know that the
        battle will no be over only when the guns are silent, or when the national will
        bows to the aggressor. It is not enough to have supremacy in the air or in
        missile capacity; for it is the guns that will remain to tell the tale of a
        great people’s resistance against occupation and the defeat of the aggressors.
        This is not because Iraq wants to enter into confrontation with others, the
        United States or any other country, but this is a general principle. The people
        of Iraq have decided to re-assume their great patriotic and nationalist role of
        faith in human civilization, and will persist in this role of self-respect and
        respect to other peoples and to their will and right to free choice.

        So let us pray for the good of all peoples, asking God to give them
        faith and spare them both from bringing harm to, or being harmed by others.

        Dan Rather:

        Mr. President, US Vice-President Richard Cheney has stated that
        when the US forces enter Iraq, they will be welcomed with greetings and music
        as an army of liberation. Do you think the American people should believe this
        sort of thing?

        S.H.:
        If the Iraqi army, or any other army for that matter, were to cross
        the Atlantic and occupy America, will the people of America receive this army
        with music. I don’t think any man in a position of responsibility should say
        this, because when he does say this sort of thing, it’s as if he is preparing
        his own people to welcome any occupying force invading their country with music
        and festivities.

        I don’t believe that. In fact I am absolutely certain that not a
        single Iraqi citizen will welcome any American, if the latter comes as an
        invader. But all Iraqis will welcome any American citizen who comes as a friend.

        So you see yourself that you, who have come from a country
        threatening to destroy Iraq, have been received with the respect and warmth to
        which you are entitled from all officials and people who know where you come
        from. What does this mean? Our citizen knows that you come as a guest and
        should be able to wonder about in Iraq in freedom. But if you had come as a
        trooper in an occupying force, you would not have been able to move freely in
        the country. So, as long as you are here, moving about in freedom, this means
        that you are here as a guest, and it is the duty of the people of Iraq to host
        you in welcome as a guest, because they are committed to such a duty.

        If Americans or others want to know the true situation in Iraq,
        they should ask themselves a specific question. The people of Iraq chose Saddam
        Hussein in a public referendum in 1995 and again in 2002, by giving him 99.6%
        and 100% of the vote on the two occasions respectively. I can understand that
        such high voting figures may seem strange to you; but whatever you take out of
        them, the figures big. Consider also the circumstances under which the Iraqi
        people gave Saddam Hussein this kind of vote. They elected him under
        circumstances of war and embargo. What does this mean? It means that the people
        of Iraq decided to take a patriotic stance under these circumstances as a
        statement to foreigners saying: It is we who choose our way and you will not
        draw our path for us.

        If the referendum had taken place at a time after than the time of
        the embargo and the war, may be Saddam Hussein would not have obtained the same
        percentage of the vote of the Iraqi people. If you want to see an indication on
        the way Iraqis act if attacked by a foreign power that wants to occupy their
        land and usurp their di
        • people-against-war.net Re: Saddam Hussein's interview for CBS - part IV 14.03.03, 23:03
          If the referendum had taken place at a time after than the time of
          the embargo and the war, may be Saddam Hussein would not have obtained the same
          percentage of the vote of the Iraqi people. If you want to see an indication on
          the way Iraqis act if attacked by a foreign power that wants to occupy their
          land and usurp their dignity, freedom, and honor, look at the outcome of the
          referendum.

          You probably know that nothing negative was said in the west about
          the organization of the referendum of 2002, for many reporters from all over
          the world were present . Some of the reporters stood by the ballot box to make
          sure that it was true that the Iraqis said (yes) to Saddam Hussein.

          S.H. on the possible new UN resolution and would it change Iraq’s stance:

          The basic constants do not change. The basic thing that we are
          committed to the Security Council resolutions which we have accepted. The
          inspectors have come to Iraq, and have seen that we had been telling the truth
          and that we have not developed weapons of mass destruction as was said by some
          parties . So, what would any new resolutions be about now ?

          The constants of our stance are clear : We do not bargain over our
          independence, dignity and freedom. At the same time we comply with what has
          been adopted by the Security Council. If new resolutions that infringe upon our
          dignity, freedom and independence, are adopted, our position will be clear and
          built on our previous position.

          S.H. on developing El-Soumoud missiles:

          Do you mean the El-Soumoud missiles that are with the UN limits and of a
          150 Km range ? Iraq has not violated any UN resolution, but if anyone wants to
          reconsider the past Security Council Resolution with which we have complied,
          including the allowed 150 Km range missiles, the issue would be put into a
          completely new framework, i.e. the UN would be relinquishing its own
          resolutions, and that the basic issue has become not implementing Security
          Council resolutions, but inflicting harm on Iraq.

          S.H. on burning oil wells, and destroying dams :

          I have answered the hypothesis, but to indulge in the details: One does not
          burn his own resources, nor is not to insinuate that they destroy Iraqi dams
          in their possible invasion. As for Iraq, it does not destroy its property or
          petrol. On the contrary it protects them and uses them to maintain its life.

          S.H. on what H.E. wants to say to the American people:

          first of all convey to them that the people of Iraq are not the enemy of the
          American people, but the enemy of the aggressive policy adopted by the American
          administrations against of the nations including Iraq. Iraqis want and work for
          living in peace. They wish that all the nations of the world, including the
          American people, live in peace, and respect the will and rights of the other
          nations.

          If the American people want to know more facts through a direct televised
          dialogue, Iam ready to conduct adebate with Mr. Bush, the President of the USA
          on TV before the entire world, so that I speak out my remarks regarding US
          policies, and he can say his remarks about Iraqi policies. Thus the Americans
          and the rest of the world would know who is right and who is wrong. I do not
          mind Mr. Dan Rather conducting the debate which can be made by satellite, with
          Mr. Bush in Washington and myself here in Baghdad, in fair way.

          We have seen in movies, the American people are courageous, and
          like the Arabs, when challenged for a duel, they would not refuse. We are not
          asking for a duel with weapons, but a live debate on TV between Mr. Bush and
          me. If he is convinced with his position regarding going to war, this would be
          an opportunity for him to convince the world of his reasons for opting for war,
          if he has already decided to go to war. It is also an opportunity for us to
          explain our views that we have a right to live in peace. I think it is the
          American and the Iraqi peoples as well as the world at large have the right to
          hear us clearly explain our positions so that they can judge where right and
          wrong are.

          Don’t you call for facts in us ? we have heard and read in
          American writings of philosophers, novels and even seen in movies that they do.
          So why should we hide away from the people and not let the facts be seen by
          all the people concerned ? This is what I am calling for : either we both go
          for peace, which is what we want and wish, to avoid our people any harm, or he
          who opts for no peace, convince his people of his reasons.

          Of course this is not a joke. I propose this as a sign of respect
          on my side to the American public opinion, to my people, and to the entire
          world. I call for this because the war is not a joke. He who considers the war
          as the first option in his life is not a normal person. If a dialogue could
          bring on opportunity for peace, why shouldn’t we go for it, and thus show
          respect to our peoples and put the facts before the centres of decision making
          in both countries ? In Iraq, the final decision is taken, after consulting the
          people, by the higher leadership in the country, and from our knowledge of the
          American constitution, in the US, it is the president who makes the decision.
          So why do not we seize this opportunity to have a live debate on the TV? Then
          everyone can chose his own way and means. If President Bush, has another
          proposal on the basis of the same idea, we are ready to hear it.

          The important thing is that the debate should be heard in a normal
          and correct way, but in the UN the voices are not always heard. I do not mean,
          by the debate, that Mr. Bush and I deliver speeches; we should sit together as
          we are doing now with you, with the difference that each one of us would be in
          a different location, and I would ask him questions he would ask me questions.
          I would explain Iraq’s position, and he the US position. He would explain why
          does he want to go to war, and I would explain why do we hold on peace and
          defend our dignity, sovereignty, and rights, in away that the American, Iraqis
          and other peoples would hear us in a direct and honest way and without pre-
          written speeches. The citizens want to see a direct and live dialogue. I think
          this applies to the psychology of American just as it does for Iraqis. The
          peoples do not want to listen to speeches, but to a dialogue where each party
          presents his reasons and counter reasons. The debate should air live and in its
          totality from American and Iraqi TV.

          S.H. on the possibility that this will be the last interview:

          what I believe in is that man’s destiny is basically determined by
          God Almighty. But as God also tells us that man should take the necessary
          preparations on Earth, I feel as if we will meet again no matter what is going
          to happen. We hope that the Iraqi people and the American people live in
          security and peace, and that they have ties between them in a way that
          expresses the national interest without anyone of them inflicting harm on the
          other.

          S.H. on the danger of the troops and fleets going toward Iraq:

          I understand, hear and see everything, but the final
          result will be determined by God Almighty, and by the Iraqis, here in Iraq ,
          and in Baghdad. I don’t mean the fate of the Americans but that of the Iraqis
          in Iraq, and the fate of any aggression against the Iraqis who are living
          peacefully in the country.

          S.H. on being the champion of the Arab street:

          I do not seek to be so ( champion of the Arabs), for what we work
          for is not a personal matter. What we want to achieve is, after God’s
          blessings, is to be true to our conscience and obtain its satisfaction along
          with the satisf
          • people-against-war.net Re: Saddam Hussein's interview for CBS - part IV 14.03.03, 23:05
            S.H. on being the champion of the Arab street:

            I do not seek to be so ( champion of the Arabs), for what we work
            for is not a personal matter. What we want to achieve is, after God’s
            blessings, is to be true to our conscience and obtain its satisfaction along
            with the satisfaction of our Iraqi people and Arab nation by serving them and
            the satisfaction of humanity when the world understands our principles as they
            are and not as people of falsehood present them. The basic thing for us, is to
            please our people in Iraq and our Arab Nation. It is not to be described as
            champion or not. The important thing for us is to be described as the faithful
            son of this nation, and I think this is a legitimate right for every citizen
            in his nation.

            S.H. on agreeing or not agreeing that bin Laden is the champion of the Arabs:

            What do you think? According to the principles in which Arabs believe, I am
            happy when a thousand champions appear in the nation; champions in the sense of
            loyalty to the nation and its principles, and not seeking personal interests.
            So, we become happy, just as you do in America, if the number of champions of
            peace, work, and production increases. We think that the basic thing is to lift
            the injustice inflicted on our Arab Nation and Iraqi people who are part of our
            Arab Nation. You see how the Palestinians are killed and their property
            destroyed, without anyone trying to set them free from the chains that are
            lied to their hands.

            If you consider Usama bin Laden a champion in America, we are not jealous of
            him, for jealousy is for women in some of their specific interests in life. Men
            should not be jealous of each other in any work they compete in, if their
            competition is in the interest of the nation and humanity at large.

            Mr. Rather is a clever man and he means to get to the facts, for I
            do not think that his questions are not merely for the purpose of excitement of
            pulling someone to say things that will be counted on him.
            • chickenshorts Re: Saddam Hussein's interview for CBS - part IV 15.03.03, 11:43

              What a lovely man!... I nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize! He'd be in a
              good company... with Kissinger & Arafat... Great stuff!...
              • glory Re: Saddam Hussein's interview for CBS - part IV 15.03.03, 13:03
                Great stuff. Oh come on.
                I'd say great bullshit!!! I'm saying again bullshit, bullshit, bullshit!
                After reading above article "Saddam Hussein's interview for CBS ", I'm going
                to lay down, switch the computer off and turn my tv on and watch Cartoon
                Network.
                • Gość: m Nobel IP: 194.130.102.* 15.03.03, 15:33
                  as usual, I nominate Homer Simpson
                  • Gość: chickenShorts Re: Nobel IP: *.abo.wanadoo.fr 15.03.03, 15:54
                    Glory:
                    >Great stuff. Oh come on.
                    >I'd say great bullshit!!! I'm saying again bullshit, bullshit, bullshit!
                    >After reading above article "Saddam Hussein's interview for CBS ", I'm going
                    >to lay down, switch the computer off and turn my tv on and watch Cartoon
                    >Network.<

                    Oh, you Australians! you are so... Australian!

                    __
                    Gość portalu: m napisał(a):

                    > as usual, I nominate Homer Simpson

                    Hi, Mishy!
                    Long time, no quarrel... We need to rectify this. I nominate S. Hussein & ...
                    well, how about Sharon? GW Bush called him 'a man of peace...
Inne wątki na temat:
Pełna wersja