Discovery of Mass Graves in Iraq

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2004-10-13 03:30am

From BBC News website ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3738368.stm ):

A mass grave being excavated in a north Iraqi village has yielded evidence that Iraqi forces executed women and children under Saddam Hussein.
US-led investigators have located nine trenches in Hatra containing hundreds of bodies believed to be Kurds killed during the repression of the 1980s.

The skeletons of unborn babies and toddlers clutching toys are being unearthed, the investigators said.

They are seeking evidence to try Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity.

It is believed to be the first time investigators working for the Iraqi Special Tribunal (IST) have conducted a full scientific exhumation of a mass grave.

It is my personal opinion that this is a killing field," Greg Kehoe, an American working with the IST, told reporters in Hatra, south of the city of Mosul.

"Someone used this field on significant occasions over time to take bodies up there, and to take people up there and execute them."

Tiny bones

The victims are believed to be Kurds killed in 1987-88, their bodies bulldozed into the graves after being summarily shot dead.

One trench contains only women and children while another contains only men.

The body of one woman was found still clutching a baby. The infant had been shot in the back of the head and the woman in the face.

The youngest foetus we have was 18 to 20 foetal weeks," said US investigating anthropologist P Willey.

"Tiny bones, femurs - thighbones the size of a matchstick."

Mr Kehoe investigated mass graves in the Balkans for five years but those burials mainly involved men of fighting age and the Iraqi finds were quite different, he said.

"I've been doing grave sites for a long time, but I've never seen anything like this, women and children executed for no apparent reason," he said.

Mr Kehoe said that work to uncover graves around Iraq, where about 300,000 people are thought to have been killed during Saddam Hussein's regime, was slow as experienced European investigators were not taking part.

The Europeans, he said, were staying away as the evidence might be used eventually to put Saddam Hussein to death.

"We're trying to meet international standards that have been accepted by courts throughout the world," he added.

"We're putting a package together on each body removed - pictures of bones, clothes, a forensic report."

Iraq's human rights ministry has reportedly identified 40 possible mass graves across the country.

The dig at Hatra, where a makeshift morgue has been erected, is due to be completed on Wednesday.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2004-10-13 03:32am

Those of you that opposed the war should at least consider that the person responsible for this horrible deed will get punished for this crime, something that would never have happened if the invasion never had took place.
Just something to think about.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2004-10-13 03:54am

Great. We invaded in 2003 for a crime that took place in 1980.

Post by **Edi** » 2004-10-13 03:54am

Mange the Swede wrote:Those of you that opposed the war should at least consider that the person responsible for this horrible deed will get punished for this crime, something that would never have happened if the invasion never had took place.
Just something to think about.

So what was the US doing about the massacres when they were occurring? It wasn't exactly unknown what Saddam was doing, and you are conveniently ignoring the fact that the Shrub administration claimed the reason for the war was WMD and immediate threat to America. The world called bullshit on that claim and they went to war anyway, only dredging up the humanitarian issues as a third or fourth or fifth resort, and I don't see any need to retract my opposition to the war. If humanitarian reasons are the real ones, when can we expect to see an invasion of Myanmar to depose their dictators? Or Sudan? Or several other shitholes in Africa and elsewhere?

Kindly take your self-righteous holier-than-thou pontification, shove it up your arse and go fuck yourself.

Edi

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-10-13 05:41am

Yes, we are all well aware that Saddamn was a sadistic dictator.

What's the latest civilian casualty count from Iraq? I've heard as much as 20,000. And not getting any better.

SAMAS · Post by **SAMAS** » 2004-10-13 11:15am

Edi wrote:
Mange the Swede wrote:Those of you that opposed the war should at least consider that the person responsible for this horrible deed will get punished for this crime, something that would never have happened if the invasion never had took place.
Just something to think about.
So what was the US doing about the massacres when they were occurring? It wasn't exactly unknown what Saddam was doing, and you are conveniently ignoring the fact that the Shrub administration claimed the reason for the war was WMD and immediate threat to America. The world called bullshit on that claim and they went to war anyway, only dredging up the humanitarian issues as a third or fourth or fifth resort, and I don't see any need to retract my opposition to the war. If humanitarian reasons are the real ones, when can we expect to see an invasion of Myanmar to depose their dictators? Or Sudan? Or several other shitholes in Africa and elsewhere?

Kindly take your self-righteous holier-than-thou pontification, shove it up your arse and go fuck yourself.

Edi

Personally, I'm glad that we at least did that for Iraq.

And Personally, I wish we could go over to those shitholes and put a foot in their asses, too.

Unfortunately, I'm not the president... yet, anyway...

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-10-13 11:18am

Well, I wonder how Jude Wanniski is going to spin this one.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-10-13 11:26am

Who's Jude Waniski?

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2004-10-13 12:28pm

Edi wrote:
Mange the Swede wrote:Those of you that opposed the war should at least consider that the person responsible for this horrible deed will get punished for this crime, something that would never have happened if the invasion never had took place.
Just something to think about.
So what was the US doing about the massacres when they were occurring? It wasn't exactly unknown what Saddam was doing, and you are conveniently ignoring the fact that the Shrub administration claimed the reason for the war was WMD and immediate threat to America. The world called bullshit on that claim and they went to war anyway, only dredging up the humanitarian issues as a third or fourth or fifth resort, and I don't see any need to retract my opposition to the war. If humanitarian reasons are the real ones, when can we expect to see an invasion of Myanmar to depose their dictators? Or Sudan? Or several other shitholes in Africa and elsewhere?

Kindly take your self-righteous holier-than-thou pontification, shove it up your arse and go fuck yourself.

Edi

Well then, I suggest that you should go fuck yourself too you babbling fool. I understand the opposition to the war, but I think it should be possible to be against the war but still be able to recognize some of the positive things that has come as a result of the invasion, such as the fact that Saddam will stand trial for the crimes he commited. I for one am happy that the person responsible for these atrocities will be punished. And yes, I hope the dictators and/or the situations in the countries you mentioned will be resolved. I suggest you divert some of your emotions to feel some empathy with the victims of this disgusting slaughter, women, children and unborn children. One child was shot in the head, while still in the arms of his mother. That's gruesome. The former Iraqi regime is one of the worst mass-murderes since the Second World War and as such shouldn't have been allowed to stay in power. They are nothing but criminals.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2004-10-13 12:39pm

Edi wrote: So what was the US doing about the massacres when they were occurring? It wasn't exactly unknown what Saddam was doing, and you are conveniently ignoring the fact that the Shrub administration claimed the reason for the war was WMD and immediate threat to America. The world called bullshit on that claim and they went to war anyway, only dredging up the humanitarian issues as a third or fourth or fifth resort, and I don't see any need to retract my opposition to the war. If humanitarian reasons are the real ones, when can we expect to see an invasion of Myanmar to depose their dictators? Or Sudan? Or several other shitholes in Africa and elsewhere?

Kindly take your self-righteous holier-than-thou pontification, shove it up your arse and go fuck yourself.

Edi

Holy shit man. Calm the fuck down...

I didn't think he was taking a self-righteous approach to the whole thing. He was asking those who opposed the war to at least recognize some positives that came out of it. Saddam being placed on trial for the crimes he has committed is no doubt a very positive thing. And not going after every scum on the planet doesn't take away from that....

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2004-10-13 01:11pm

Thanks, Kamakazie Sith, that's exactly what I meant. You put it more clear than I did.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-10-13 01:22pm

Vympel wrote:Who's Jude Waniski?

He's a right-wing guy who's been denying Saddam ever committed atrocities for years. Relatively obscure.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-10-13 02:41pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote:I didn't think he was taking a self-righteous approach to the whole thing. He was asking those who opposed the war to at least recognize some positives that came out of it. Saddam being placed on trial for the crimes he has committed is no doubt a very positive thing. And not going after every scum on the planet doesn't take away from that....

So ... okay, Saddam Hussein is on trial and will have justice dispensed. I now recognize that. Invading Iraq was still a dumb-shit thing to do, the American people were still lied to to gain their support for it, it still has been incompetently handled, it's costing shitloads of money, thousands of Americans and Iraqis are dead, and a good third of the country is out of our control.

Hussein being put up on trial is a good thing in and of itself, but compared to the shitstorm that we've caused over there, it's barely a blip on the radar. In other words, if I was given a choice between our situation now and simply not having invaded, I'd choose the latter. Saddam Hussein getting executed or imprisoned for life just isn't all that important to me.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-13 02:43pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote:I didn't think he was taking a self-righteous approach to the whole thing. He was asking those who opposed the war to at least recognize some positives that came out of it. Saddam being placed on trial for the crimes he has committed is no doubt a very positive thing. And not going after every scum on the planet doesn't take away from that...

The fact that Saddam was a scumbag does not change the fact that we have caused more pain and misery since invading than would have occurred otherwise, not to mention all of the other problems with the war. You can't refute "the cure is worse than the disease" by saying "but the disease is bad".

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-10-13 02:45pm

Mange the Swede wrote:Those of you that opposed the war should at least consider that the person responsible for this horrible deed will get punished for this crime, something that would never have happened if the invasion never had took place.
Just something to think about.

Hear that, all you anti-war liberal commie assholes? By criticizing the rationale for going to war, you are saying that Saddam Hussein doesn't deserve to be put on trial for his crimes. You all fucking disgust me.

The_Nice_Guy · Post by **The_Nice_Guy** » 2004-10-14 12:46am

If there had been a better way to depose Saddam, like in a Tom Clancy novel, that would have been for the best.

Unfortunately, we don't live in an Arthur Fiat world. And so plenty of people have to die. And indeed, sometimes it is for the greater good. The Second World War had no lack of brutality and sheer hatred by all combatants for their enemies, whether military and civilian.

They didn't shied away from doing what was necessary: bombing the hell out of Japan, for example.

Pain and misery right now is still a short term syndrome. A few more years may be needed before that pain and misery turns into pleasure and joy. The long term calculus should be measured in decades, not months. The patient is undergoing chemotherapy now, and it sucks like hell, but he'll be the better for it in a few months.

TWG

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-10-14 03:18am

One argument I hear is the US goverment was an ally of Iraq during the war with Iran in the 1980s. Anyone know more about this ?

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-10-14 03:24am

The Shadow wrote:One argument I hear is the US goverment was an ally of Iraq during the war with Iran in the 1980s. Anyone know more about this ?

Sort of. The US, Saudi Arabia, and the Soviets all wanted Iraq to act as a buffer between Iran and the Arabian Penninsula (they were all afraid of the rise of Iranian-style fundamentalism). They loaned Saddam large sums of money and some weapons, though most of Iraq's weapons came from the Soviet Union, China, and France.

The result was a long war that ended in a stalemate. Iraq also, consequently, managed to build up one of the best air-defense networks the world has ever seen. It really combined some really good Soviet SAM's and other equipment with American computers. That's why the stealth fighters were so important in Operation Desert Storm.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-10-14 01:02pm

Well, if we are giving them large sums of money, weapons, and intelligence against their enemies, how is there a "Sort of" there, MoO?

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-10-14 01:18pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:Well, if we are giving them large sums of money, weapons, and intelligence against their enemies, how is there a "Sort of" there, MoO?

No one was really an ally of Iraq, except in the sense that "an enemy of my enemy is my friend." No one really liked Saddam, they just thought he was better than the Ayatollah. I don't see that that makes him a US or a Soviet ally in the sense that the US is allied with the UK.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-14 01:20pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
Gil Hamilton wrote:Well, if we are giving them large sums of money, weapons, and intelligence against their enemies, how is there a "Sort of" there, MoO?
No one was really an ally of Iraq, except in the sense that "an enemy of my enemy is my friend." No one really liked Saddam, they just thought he was better than the Ayatollah. I don't see that that makes him a US or a Soviet ally in the sense that the US is allied with the UK.

The US was certainly closer to Iraq than most of the countries named as allies of Al-Quaeda (for the purposes of the so-called "War on Terror") are to Al-Quaeda.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2004-10-14 03:03pm

Durandal wrote:
So ... okay, Saddam Hussein is on trial and will have justice dispensed. I now recognize that. Invading Iraq was still a dumb-shit thing to do, the American people were still lied to to gain their support for it, it still has been incompetently handled, it's costing shitloads of money, thousands of Americans and Iraqis are dead, and a good third of the country is out of our control.

Hussein being put up on trial is a good thing in and of itself, but compared to the shitstorm that we've caused over there, it's barely a blip on the radar. In other words, if I was given a choice between our situation now and simply not having invaded, I'd choose the latter. Saddam Hussein getting executed or imprisoned for life just isn't all that important to me.

I agree. Invading Iraq under false pretenses and without and adequate occupation plan was both wrong and stupid. However, all I'm saying is I don't believe Mange was saying the opposite. A couple people here seem to think Mange is saying "The war in Iraq is completely justified because Saddam was caught and justice will be satisfied regardless of the reasons initially given"

I don't believe Mange is saying that at all, perhaps I'm wrong but I don't see it. Try not to read to far into peoples comments. Some people are just naturally optimistic.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2004-10-14 03:04pm

Darth Wong wrote: The fact that Saddam was a scumbag does not change the fact that we have caused more pain and misery since invading than would have occurred otherwise, not to mention all of the other problems with the war. You can't refute "the cure is worse than the disease" by saying "but the disease is bad".

Indeed, but I don't believe Mange's comment meant that either. Which is how this all started.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2004-10-14 03:05pm

Durandal wrote:
Mange the Swede wrote:Those of you that opposed the war should at least consider that the person responsible for this horrible deed will get punished for this crime, something that would never have happened if the invasion never had took place.
Just something to think about.
Hear that, all you anti-war liberal commie assholes? By criticizing the rationale for going to war, you are saying that Saddam Hussein doesn't deserve to be put on trial for his crimes. You all fucking disgust me.

Explain to me why you think Mange means that?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-10-14 03:16pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote:
Durandal wrote:
Mange the Swede wrote:Those of you that opposed the war should at least consider that the person responsible for this horrible deed will get punished for this crime, something that would never have happened if the invasion never had took place.
Just something to think about.
Hear that, all you anti-war liberal commie assholes? By criticizing the rationale for going to war, you are saying that Saddam Hussein doesn't deserve to be put on trial for his crimes. You all fucking disgust me.
Explain to me why you think Mange means that?

Oh please. It's painfully obvious that he's trying to guilt-trip detractors of Operation "Iraqi Freedom" into admitting that good things came from the war, as if we've never admitted it ever before. We have, but that's not the point. The point is that the good things which came from the war were not worth the severe cost we've paid so far.

Seriously, what else would he be trying to say? "Always look on the bright side of life"?

So instead of trying to justify the war because Saddam is behind bars, he is now trying to deflect focus from the quagmire going on over there. That's much better.