Saddam's Killing Field


Paco
#1
An interesting piece on the crimes of Saddam. I'll post parts of it and you can read the whole article here.

A trench with piles of clothed bodies packed tightly together. Men, women, little children. Even unborn children. Some blindfolded. Some with their hands bound. All slaughtered in cold blood by the henchmen of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

"I’ve never seen women and children executed, defenseless people executed in this fashion," he said. "I mean, you look at a young woman holding her 2-year-old child with a gunshot wound to the back of the head. I can’t find any reason to justify that."

The scene was pure chaos. People were running from pile to pile, looking for loved ones long lost. With so much emotion built up you could imagine and understand why no one was carefully going about the business of sorting through the human debris.
 
Reverend Blair
#2
Quote:

"I’ve never seen women and children executed, defenseless people executed in this fashion," he said. "I mean, you look at a young woman holding her 2-year-old child with a gunshot wound to the back of the head. I can’t find any reason to justify that."

And yet dropping depleted uranium and daisy cutters on them is somehow better?
 
moghrabi
#3
Sorry this article is from FOX news. It is not fair nor balanced reporting.
 
moghrabi
#4
The U.S. military is secretly using banned napalm gas and other outlawed weapons against civilians in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, eyewitnesses reported.

Residents in Fallujah reported that innocent civilians have been killed by napalm attacks, a poisonous cocktail of polystyrene and jet fuel which makes the human body melt.

Since the U.S. offensive started in Fallujah earlier this month, there have been reports of “melted” bodies which proves that the napalm gas had been used.

"Poisonous gases have been used in Fallujah," 35-year-old Fallujah resident, Abu Hammad said. "They used everything -- tanks, artillery, infantry, and poisonous gas. Fallujah has been bombed to the ground." Hammad was living in the Julan district of Fallujah which witnessed some of the heaviest attacks.

Other residents of that area also said that banned weapons were used. Abu Sabah, said; “They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud… then small pieces fall from the air with long tails of smoke behind them."

He said that pieces of these strange bombs explode into large fires that burn the skin even when water is thrown on the burns.

Phosphorous arms and the napalm gas are known to have such effects. "People suffered so much from these," Abu Sabah said.


Fallujah “almost gone”


Kassem Mohammed Ahmed, who fled Fallujah last week, said that he witnessed many atrocities committed by U.S. troops in the shattered city. "I watched them roll over wounded people in the street with tanks," he said. "This happened so many times."

Another Fallujah resident Khalil (40) said that “Fallujah is suffering too much, it is almost gone now." He added that refugees are in a miserable situation now, "It's a disaster living here at this camp," Khalil said. "We are living like dogs and the kids do not have enough clothes."

In many refugee camps around Fallujah and Baghdad, people are living without enough food, clothing and shelter. Relief groups estimate that there are more than 15,000 refugee families in temporary shelters outside Fallujah.


Blair under fire over the use of napalm


On Saturday, Labor MPs have demanded that British Prime Minister confront the Commons over the use of the deadly gas in Fallujah.

Halifax Labor MP Alice Mahon said: "I am calling on Mr. Blair to make an emergency statement to the Commons to explain why this is happening. It begs the question: 'Did we know about this hideous weapon's use in Iraq?'"

Furious critics have also demanded that Blair threatens the U.S. to pullout British forces from Iraq unless the U.S. stops using the world’s deadliest weapon.

The United Nations banned the use of the napalm gas against civilians in 1980 after pictures of a naked wounded girl in Vietnam shocked the world.

The United States, which didn't endorse the convention, is the only nation in the world still using the deadly weapon.
 
ElPolaco
#5
This description of slaughter is a sad example of the cruelty practices by man on his fellow human beings. There is absolutely no excuse for it. It reminds me of eye witness descriptions I've read about massacres by Pinochet in Chile, the Salvadoran army/death squads or the Nicaraguan contras. Oh, sorry, excuse me. I'm not supposed to bring up examples of sadistic, blood thirsty groups supported by the United States.
 
Andem
Free Thinker
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by ElPolaco

This description of slaughter is a sad example of the cruelty practices by man on his fellow human beings. There is absolutely no excuse for it. It reminds me of eye witness descriptions I've read about massacres by Pinochet in Chile, the Salvadoran army/death squads or the Nicaraguan contras. Oh, sorry, excuse me. I'm not supposed to bring up examples of sadistic, blood thirsty groups supported by the United States.

Iraq's "evil-doings" (quote GWB) were also originally supported by the United States until they changed their minds.
 
moghrabi
#7
It is sad indeed. The US supported Saddam in killing his own people and now they are finishing the job by killing more innocents.
 
Paco
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by moghrabi

Sorry this article is from FOX news. It is not fair nor balanced reporting.

Izzzat right? I at least had the courage to post a link to my information. Where are your balls at, ***deleted racial epithet***?

A couple of researchers, Tim Groseclose from UCLA and Jeff Milyo of the University of Chicago, two bastions of liberal thinking, say you’re wrong. They did a study titled “A measure of media bias” and found that,

Our results show a very significant liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News’ Special Report received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. Moreover, by one of our measures all but three of these media outlets (Special Report, the Drudge Report, and ABC’s World News Tonight) were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than to the median member of the House of Representatives. One of our measures found that the Drudge Report is the most centrist of all media outlets in our sample. Our other measure found that Fox News’ Special Report is the most centrist. These findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample.

Do you understand? “Fox News… is the most centrist.” Centrist = center, middle, neutral. Instead of making wild ass ***deleted racial epithet*** asserations, prove the bias of Fox News.
 
ElPolaco
#9
If fox news is considered "centrist" by some "liberal" group, it's really frightening. It means the bell curve has shifted so far to the right that the u.s. is beyond hope. Now I'M paranoid!
 
Reverend Blair
#10
Fox News is about as balanced as a drunk with an ear infection, ElPolaco. The world press just laughs at what passes for news in the US these days.
 
grimy
#11
Quote:

A trench with piles of clothed bodies packed tightly together. Men, women, little children. Even unborn children. Some blindfolded. Some with their hands bound. All slaughtered in cold blood by the henchmen of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

"I’ve never seen women and children executed, defenseless people executed in this fashion," he said. "I mean, you look at a young woman holding her 2-year-old child with a gunshot wound to the back of the head. I can’t find any reason to justify that."

The scene was pure chaos. People were running from pile to pile, looking for loved ones long lost. With so much emotion built up you could imagine and understand why no one was carefully going about the business of sorting through the human debris.


Quote:

And yet dropping depleted uranium and daisy cutters on them is somehow better?

Interesting method you employ to justify Saddam's treatment of his former subjects.
 
Reverend Blair
#12
Nobody is trying to justify or support that, Grimy. Trying to purport that they are is an avoidance of the real issue...the fact that George Bush is a war criminal.
 
Twila
#13
Fox news......we report you decide. And now a word from Bill O'Reilly...."SHUT UP" yes, that's right they report and you decide (so long as you decide in their favour or at least keep your mouth shut)\
 
moghrabi
#14
Am I pissing you off that much Paco? Take it easy before you have a heart attack. You are the one who said whoever starts calling the other names must be losing the argument.

You were asking about my balls. I have them with me and you are not going to see them.
 
Machjo
#15
Hey, the American Reich (oh, I mean, hum, right, typos happen, you know) was right (no pun intended). Nations which have access to weapons of mass destrution, chemical weapons, etc., just might use them.
 
moghrabi
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo

Hey, the American Reich (oh, I mean, hum, right, typos happen, you know) was right (no pun intended). Nations which have access to weapons of mass destrution, chemical weapons, etc., just might use them.

Well we know for a fact the the US is has the largest stocks of Chemical and biological weapons not counting the Nuclear ones. Do you think they are going to use them against China oneday?
 
Rick van Opbergen
#17
I'm a bit confused. This thread was initially about Saddam's killing fields. Than immediately, moghrabi said this was all biased because it was a source by Fox News, and the subject was changed to how bad Bush is. I think that is just really undecent. Not only Fox News has reported about these killing fields - many other mediasources have done the same. Thousands of people have died there. Is that something we have to make of marginal importance just to point at the fact that Bush has caused so much trouble in this world? It could as well be Paco posted this out of another perspective - to give a justification for the Iraq war (to give an example). But than we should discuss that in another thread. I'm just stunned how easily people have changed the subject. It just makes me sick. And yes, I'm pissed off by this.
 
Reverend Blair
#18
It's impossible to talk about those killing fields honestly without bringing the Bush family into it in a very big way, Ricky. George I was instrumental in bringing Bush to power when he was head of the CIA, then pushing for closer relations when he vice president. The technology and training for weapons of mass destruction came from governments that George I was in, along with many who now work for George II.

There is no doubt that the US knew about the Kurds that were gassed...the Reagan administration fought against sanctioning Saddam for that. It is also fair to assume that the Reagan and first Bush regimes knew about Saddam's killing fields and remained friendly with him. The evidence for that is largely circumstantial, but if we were hearing about Saddam's brutal regime as the general public it is fair to assume that the government supplying the monster with the weapons that ket him in power also knew.

When the pet monster got out of control he became public enemy number 1, but there is at least some evidence that he had a tacit nod from George I to invade Kuwait and the war was really because the Saudis were getting nervous. At any rate we now know that George I lied to build support for that first invasion as well.

Now George II has launched an illegal invasion. 100,000 Iraqis are dead as a result...likely more than Saddam killed in any single year. The US has admitted to using napalm, an banned weapon, and argues that it has every right to use depleted uranium...another banned weapon and one that we know the true effects of largely because of the first invasion of Iraq.

So I guess the question becomes how do you discuss one without the other and do so honestly? If you want to talk about the mass graves that Saddam had dug, how do you ignore that the US knew what was going on and kept suporting him because they wanted access to his oil? How do you look at the graves that have been dug since the invasion began and not make the comparison?
 
Rick van Opbergen
#19
With all respect, but that's not what I meant. In response to Paco's post, the first reaction was pointing at crimes committed by the US army in the last what-is-it two years. It was not about a possible US knowledge of these mass graves, as you point out in response to my post.

Not all the mass graves in Iraq are linked to the gassing of the Kurds in Northern Iraq, but I don't think that is even important. Call me traditional, or just stupid, but I assumed that the first reaction to Paco's article would be one of standing still at the death of these people, people who were killed because of their beliefs, ancestry and so on. Instead, a link is immediately made to deaths in Fallujah, which makes these murdered people in these massgraves portrayed as "less important" in my eyes.

But OK, if I follow your line of argumention, I can see how you feel this discussion is totally in place. But if you want to discuss this fair and balanced, then where are Western-European powers in the picture, or the UN? Have they not made mistakes or put certain interests first which caused the deaths of so many Iraqis? Does not the following rule apply for them too: "It's impossible to talk about those killing fields honestly without bringing (... fill in ...) into it in a very big way"?
 
moghrabi
#20
BTW and FYI Rick, The Kurds were not gassed by Saddam. The poisonous gas used at that time was from Iran. Iraq did not have this type of gas.

As for the invasion of Kuwait, Saddam got full invitation to do so from the US ambassador to Iraq or representative. The US wanted him to invade first to scare the people who have the oil fields and provide them protection after kicking Saddam out (insuring solid Oil flow). And second, to put Saddam on the black list and go after him as they did, so they have his oil.
 
Reverend Blair
#21
Quote:

But if you want to discuss this fair and balanced, then where are Western-European powers in the picture, or the UN?

You forgot the former USSR...they are in this neck-deep too.

The UN was basically rendered ineffective in the Middle East (still is, really) because the US, Britain, France, and Russia (and now China, but they are a relative newcomer) all had interest in the oil. The western nations divvied the place up after WWI, they installed and controlled governments, they treated the people like garbage, they discouraged modernization of anything but the oil fields.

The US was and still is the biggest player when it comes to that. They have been the most involved, especially since WWII, and have arguably been the most brutal.

Does Europe deserve to shoulder some of the blame? Most definitely. The lion's share of responsibility really goes to Exxon...the Rockefeller family really...and the US government though. The historical facts all point to that.

There is a similar pattern still playing out in South America. There are the beginnings of it in Africa. It is a different kind of colonialism, but it is still colonialism and the brutal results are still the same, and just as predictable.
 
Paco
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Twila

Fox news......we report you decide. And now a word from Bill O'Reilly...."SHUT UP" yes, that's right they report and you decide (so long as you decide in their favour or at least keep your mouth shut)\

Bill O'Reilly does not report the news. He has an opinion talk show that discusses current events. He and much of the opinion shows on Fox News lean right. The reporting on Fox News is straight down the middle.

Fox News broke the story on George Bush's DUI arrest 3 or 4 days before the 2000 election. Before Fox News broke that story, Bush had a 6 or 7 point lead over Gore. A couple of days later it turned out to be one of the closest elections in American presidential history. The reporting is indeed fair and balanced.

One must be able to distinguish the difference between news and opinion.
 
moghrabi
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Reverend Blair

[The UN was basically rendered ineffective in the Middle East (still is, really) because the US, Britain, France, and Russia (and now China, but they are a relative newcomer) all had interest in the oil. The western nations divvied the place up after WWI, they installed and controlled governments, they treated the people like garbage, they discouraged modernization of anything but the oil fields.
The US was and still is the biggest player when it comes to that. They have been the most involved, especially since WWII, and have arguably been the most brutal.

I love the truth. Thanks Reverend for putting it clearly. Now we should ask ourselves: Why the people of the ME have such animosity towards the West? The answer is in Bold above.
 
Paco
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by moghrabi

BTW and FYI Rick, The Kurds were not gassed by Saddam. The poisonous gas used at that time was from Iran. Iraq did not have this type of gas.

As for the invasion of Kuwait, Saddam got full invitation to do so from the US ambassador to Iraq or representative. The US wanted him to invade first to scare the people who have the oil fields and provide them protection after kicking Saddam out (insuring solid Oil flow). And second, to put Saddam on the black list and go after him as they did, so they have his oil.


While American Soldiers Are Showering in Saddam's Bathroom Nearby Presidential Palace:


"We have killed most of the [coalition] infidels, and I think we will finish off the rest soon." --Moham-med Saeed al-Sahaf
 
Reverend Blair
#25
Yeah, I've seen some of their fair and balanced reporting. What they call straight news looks like an Uncle Sam recruiting poster. One of the first things you learn in photography is what to leave out of a picture. Fox leaves an awful lot out...and not just in the pictures they show.
 
moghrabi
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Paco

Quote: Originally Posted by moghrabi

BTW and FYI Rick, The Kurds were not gassed by Saddam. The poisonous gas used at that time was from Iran. Iraq did not have this type of gas.

As for the invasion of Kuwait, Saddam got full invitation to do so from the US ambassador to Iraq or representative. The US wanted him to invade first to scare the people who have the oil fields and provide them protection after kicking Saddam out (insuring solid Oil flow). And second, to put Saddam on the black list and go after him as they did, so they have his oil.


While American Soldiers Are Showering in Saddam's Bathroom Nearby Presidential Palace:


"We have killed most of the [coalition] infidels, and I think we will finish off the rest soon." --Moham-med Saeed al-Sahaf

I would appreciate not calling me any other name but mine. As for the information I posted above, you should be aware that just before the invasion of Iraq in 1990, Saddam met with a lady ambassador and he got the green light. She told him that this is an internal matter between Arabs and the US does not see any reason for involvement.
 
moghrabi
#27
Paco please read the following:

Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador Glaspie

Transcript of Meeting Between Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie. - July 25, 1990

http://www.totse.com/en/conspiracy/t...r/glaspie.html
 
moghrabi
#28
Another interesting one:



http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle1148.htm

http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/04/1602606_comment.php
 
Paco
#29
Here is one:

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.pht...:April_Glaspie
 

Similar Threads

9
0
Flanders Field
by Jersay | May 12th, 2006
22
Massive Oil Field Discovered
by I think not | May 6th, 2006