Talon Posted October 13, 2004 #1 Share Posted October 13, 2004 Babies found in Iraqi mass grave 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. Long search 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. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/worl...ast/3738368.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nxt2Hvn Posted October 13, 2004 #2 Share Posted October 13, 2004 (edited) And you guys actually think that there was NO reason to go to war????? whatever! Saddam needed to be removed.... and that has been done! Edited October 13, 2004 by Nxt2Hvn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daughter of the Nine Moons Posted October 13, 2004 #3 Share Posted October 13, 2004 "Tiny bones, femurs - thighbones the size of a matchstick." I read your post in total shock Talon. I am so horrified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeceris Posted October 13, 2004 #4 Share Posted October 13, 2004 1987-88. wasn't that about the time rumsfeld and cheney were shaking hands with saddam. the hypocrysy of the people you support next2, is mindnumbing. bush 1 didn't seem to think anything was wrong then, it wasn't until cheney lied to everyone about iraqi build up on the saudi border that the thought of going in began. mass graves are a horrid thing, but invasion of iraq was wrong, and always will be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bathory Posted October 13, 2004 #5 Share Posted October 13, 2004 (edited) wasn't that about the time rumsfeld and cheney were shaking hands with saddam 1983 Edited October 13, 2004 by bathory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC09 Posted October 13, 2004 #6 Share Posted October 13, 2004 Saddam needed to be removed.... and that has been done! 304469[/snapback] Yep. This sort of thing is all over Iraq. Victims of Saddam's Regime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nxt2Hvn Posted October 13, 2004 #7 Share Posted October 13, 2004 (edited) the hypocrysy of the people you support next2, is mindnumbing. Did you say your Mind was numb???? *Did I just say that out loud???* Sorry... i get mouthy sometimes! Edited October 13, 2004 by Nxt2Hvn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunarmdscissor Posted October 13, 2004 #8 Share Posted October 13, 2004 Nxt2Hvn , none of us disagree about saddam , just taht the war was at the wrong time, poorly planned, and for the wrong reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seraphina Posted October 13, 2004 #9 Share Posted October 13, 2004 *wonders if Nxt realises how hideously zealous she is* You know, I don't think anyone ever argued that Saddam was a nice guy....and believe me, I'm sure, had this war been conducted in a sane manner, we'd all be better off without him in power... However, it hasn't been, and we're not It would have been nice if the war was actually MEANT to liberate the people of Iraq, and had been conducted in that manner, instead of being about puppet states and oil, with neither the war nor the following occupation making much sense whatsoever Now, we don't have Saddam, but we have gone from being ankle deep, t being neck deep in terrorism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunarmdscissor Posted October 13, 2004 #10 Share Posted October 13, 2004 save your breath sera, your a "leftist conspiracist" remember nothing we say could ever make sense ever. I could tell them the sky is blue and the grass green and theyd yelll "COMMIE!!!!!!". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nxt2Hvn Posted October 13, 2004 #11 Share Posted October 13, 2004 *wonders if Nxt realises how hideously zealous she is* Thanks for the compliment Sera.... coming from you of course! Now, we don't have Saddam, but we have gone from being ankle deep, t being neck deep in terrorism I'd say we were pretty much "neck deep" in September of 2001.... remember 9/11? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunarmdscissor Posted October 13, 2004 #12 Share Posted October 13, 2004 so had quite a few other countries for abou that last 6 decades, not that it seems to matter to some on the forum. Why cant you tell the difference between hating saddam and agreeing that he should have been taken out and not supporting the war. Everything isnt black and white. I mean in another thread a certain member was slagging the french for not supporting them saying that they "hould be eternally grateful for AMERICA liberating them and that if only he had a crystal ball". Untill i pointed out that 1. with the french america wouldnt exist and 2. most of the troops in normandy were not american.(although they did make the single biggest contribution in terms of men). I mean the bigger picture people can encapsulate more than one opinion on a subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seraphina Posted October 13, 2004 #13 Share Posted October 13, 2004 (edited) I'd say we were pretty much "neck deep" in September of 2001.... remember 9/11? You mean the attack that was the result of another blunder by the Bush administration? Not to mention that he has never managed (or really made any convincing attempt) to bring those responsible for it to justice Edited October 13, 2004 by Seraphina Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeceris Posted October 13, 2004 #14 Share Posted October 13, 2004 seraphina and wun, you leftist commie b******* it's good to hear sane opinions about this war/invasion. bathory corrected me with the year 1983 as being the time rumsfeld and saddam were chummy. but the point he and next2 seem to miss is the timing of this invasion. i'm sure with the satellites the american had in '88, they could've seen the graves being created, but as halliburton was making so much money at the time, it was better to turn a blind eye. the right wingers love to yell, "look at the good we did" but fail to remember the evil they ignored in favour of bucks. and then don't understand the meaning of the word, hypocritical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seraphina Posted October 13, 2004 #15 Share Posted October 13, 2004 seraphina and wun, you leftist commie b******* Aww you went on to agree with me....I was already to annihilate you for saying that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bathory Posted October 13, 2004 #16 Share Posted October 13, 2004 i'm sure with the satellites the american had in '88, they could've seen the graves being created, but as halliburton was making so much money at the time, it was better to turn a blind eye. what did haliburton have to do with anything? Cheney is the only one who has ties to haliburton and he wasn't even CEO in '88.. I fail to understand your logic the right wingers love to yell, "look at the good we did" but fail to remember the evil they ignored in favour of bucks. they ignored the evil because there was a greater evil to worry about, of course you don't understand that. Now when there is the chance to get rid of the regime you cry foul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wcturnersr Posted October 13, 2004 #17 Share Posted October 13, 2004 Back to the topic. May Saddam rest in hell! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeceris Posted October 13, 2004 #18 Share Posted October 13, 2004 i'm sure with the satellites the american had in '88, they could've seen the graves being created, but as halliburton was making so much money at the time, it was better to turn a blind eye. what did haliburton have to do with anything? Cheney is the only one who has ties to haliburton and he wasn't even CEO in '88.. I fail to understand your logic the right wingers love to yell, "look at the good we did" but fail to remember the evil they ignored in favour of bucks. they ignored the evil because there was a greater evil to worry about, of course you don't understand that. Now when there is the chance to get rid of the regime you cry foul. 304606[/snapback] what?????? there was a greater evil to worry about? bush and his father and the whole crooked gang get involved when it suits their bank accounts. and halliburton has always done business with iraq, and has always had a republican, who just left office, to be their ceo and make sure they could always do business with crooks. from nixon's ex chief of staff to cheney. so why didn't the u.s. go in 88 and save these people? cause it wouldn't have made them any money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wcturnersr Posted October 13, 2004 #19 Share Posted October 13, 2004 Jeceris, I think you need to have some facts to back up everything you just stated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celumnaz Posted October 13, 2004 #20 Share Posted October 13, 2004 You know, I don't think anyone ever argued that Saddam was a nice guy....and believe me, I'm sure, had this war been conducted in a sane manner, we'd all be better off without him in power... I just don't get it though. He'd still be in power today going about his business as usual with France, Germany, Russia, et al... Still torturing, his son would be in charge of the olympic athletes, raping... These and other reasons were enough for me to have taken him out in the first Gulf war, but we didn't because of polotics. Our pansy leftists didn't want to take that briber out, until they got scared of the WMDs. Ok, then, be scared of WMDs! The world intelligence agencys said it was a threat. Lets get rid of this guy already, they agreed, we did. Sorry to the head-in-the-sand human shields out there. So we're better off without him in power, yet it was wrong to go in and do it. Coalition? With France, Germany, yawn etc...? A coalition of the truely bribed and coerced? Does anyone with any sense in this world honestly think that would've worked? Not honestly. I'm never in a big hurry to make a deal with people who are being bribed by people that hate me. So how else then? We do have a coalition going, just not with the ones bribed by Saddam. How could it have been done better? Note: I'm not a republican or a Bush lover. What's this better plan, how would it have possibly worked with the corruption in the UN, how would it have made sure Saddam, his sons, and his ilk would not be able to torture and rape the people of Iraq, and visitors, again? How long would this plan have taken? How many people would he have killed or bribed or terrorists given courage and refuge to like those that fled Afghanistan before this non-existant plan did anything... positive? How come when I read the world news, I never hear any of the good things my friends that are there tell me about? Ever. Never ever. Never does the world news want to give the slightest impression that anything good is happening, it's all doom and gloom. I hardly get a chance to say "look at the good we did" because it's NEVER reported!!! *IF* it's reported, it will have some "but" clause in it. Yes, Saddam was an Evil man. A curse on your kin if you dare suggest Bush or the USA had anything to do with getting him out or anything good came of it. Bye Saddam, enjoy your recovery from surgery some innocents in this world will never have a chance to get. You have got to know he would rather have had Gore or Kerry as president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wcturnersr Posted October 13, 2004 #21 Share Posted October 13, 2004 I guess you can say Saddam was the Weapon of Mass Destruction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seraphina Posted October 13, 2004 #22 Share Posted October 13, 2004 What's this better plan How about keeping the country's infastructure intact so that we wouldn't have the lawlessness in Iraq that we do now? How about taking more care not to have the ridiculous levels of collatoral damage we've had? Or perhaps that's the wrong term...collatoral damage implies the US troops were aiming for something OTHER than the civilians when they fired Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celumnaz Posted October 13, 2004 #23 Share Posted October 13, 2004 So when I hear people I know say they were thanked for supplying running water, electricity where there was none... ok, instead of keeping the 'infrastructure' in tact, we improved it. Not like the world hears about it. The Iraqi police were bribed by terrorists, we have a media guy testifying over here about the corruption in the police, we should have left that alone? We did what we had to do, hard as it was it had to be done. You'd rather we left Saddam there? One nice thing is we have free press. Our press that was echoing the world news was looked at and found wanting for the truth. They don't give the same story the people actually there give. Or, they find a "man on the street" to echo the world opinion and report on that guy. There was a little revolution we had here in our media, truth about freedom works it's way to us because we have a choice on who we listen to. If someone lies to us we're not forced to keep listening to them. Do a good job, stay in business and prosper, do a bad job and... CBS for you. BBC was CBS'd to me years ago, before CBS got CBS'd. AP/Reuters almost the same thing. Look at How they describe events and what position you find yourself taking when reading the 'news'. They don't just inform their readers, they Lead them. Look at the journalists and news people, they say they want to change the world, I just want them to report the news, not "tragedy struck", I'll figure out if it's a tragedy or not thanks. Collateral damage sucks, it happens, life isn't fair. The Human Shields were all about collateral damage, and I know my friend didn't aim at innocents when he killed them. He's upset about it, ticked off really at the loss of life, and he blames the TERRORISTS. The terrorist will hold a child in front of him and start shooting at you and blame you for killing the child. Look at what they did in Russia, blaming anyone other than the barbarians that went in there and did the deed is unethical, yet I hear people blaming the government. Haven't we had over 1000 non-gun related deaths in this country already? Those can be argued as senseless, here we're trying to do something good, which I think the world sortof agrees with that Saddam being out is good, we're trying to do good here and yes, it's in our best interests as well, Saddam being out is gooooood. I guess that's the sore spot, anything good for the US must be bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lottie Posted October 13, 2004 #24 Share Posted October 13, 2004 Everything isnt black and white. I agree its not...its shades of blood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now